http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
rates by up to 98%.
They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
be related to the closure of bars.”
The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.
I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
measures.
In <stfkp0$7pi$1@dont-email.me> Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> writes:
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
[stupid #deathcult shit deleted]
Pathetic and sad
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
rates by up to 98%.
They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
be related to the closure of bars.”
The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.
I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
measures.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a
statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school
closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable
effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
rates by up to 98%.
They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
be related to the closure of bars.”
The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging
anyone expressing doubts over such measures.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for
expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus
to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they >> were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and
implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not
appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the
cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating
the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, >> for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting
views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and
universities.
I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
measures.
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids that render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/02/study-lockdowns-did-little-to-combat-covid-mortality
Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in
2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic
and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises
questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will
come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a
statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who
were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it
would have been better for public health to have this debate than to
shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
The researchers declared We find no evidence that lockdowns, school
closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable >>> effect on COVID-19 mortality.
The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College
London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death
rates by up to 98%.
They did find that closing nonessential businesses seems to have had
some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to
be related to the closure of bars.
The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion
that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging >>> anyone expressing doubts over such measures.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for
expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus >>> to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people
raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the
nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the wet market theory), they
were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the
bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed.
The New York Times reporter covering the area called it racist and
implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible
and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a
year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to
protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not >>> appear to block these variants and even CNNs experts are calling the
cloth masks little more than facial decorations.
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating >>> the infodemic. There are also calls, including from the White House,
for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogans show for allowing dissenting
views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting
viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and
science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on
such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled
extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists
have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was
the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and
universities.
I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily
recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most
protective course. However, we could have taken that course without
actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these
measures.
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.S. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids that render current COVID
vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 69:32:07 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,382 |