Shocking News from the World of Science: COVID lockdowns did not reduce deaths, but did reduce employment.

[Rigby5]

I'm not sure that's correct. Pandemics mutate to being less deadly usually in 2-3 years. Immunity is not necessarily protection from mutations.

Sorry, but I disagree.
Mutations are not really relevant in my opinion.
Sure there are some changes on every virus reproduction, but they generally are insignificant or non-viable.
That is NOT where variants come from.
Variants come from more than one virus injecting its RNA or DNA into the same cell, and combining.
And variants actually always existed from long ago.
The reason they suddenly seem significant if not from recent mutation, but from recent natural selection.
All the existing variants are competing for hosts, and the least lethal will reproduce the most, because they won't be forced to find new hosts as often,

Pandemics normally evolve from natural selection to less deadly in a month or 2, not years.
The only reason this has been slowed with covid is that we deliberately "flattened the curve", slowing everything down.
Which is harmful.
The more quickly we reach herd immunity %, the least death toll you end up with as a result.

Immunity IS protection from variants.
Those who recovered from the original variants also still have immunity from the more recently popular variants.
The reason is it currently being claimed that the variants are avoiding immunity is that the mRNA injections are not working, so they needed to come up with a cover story.
But it is a false cover story.
That should be easy to understand once you think about how the mRNA injections work.
They contain no virus at all, so can not possibly be variant specific at all.
They just get our own cells to start sprouting spike proteins.
And these spike proteins can not be variant specific because their intended target is the ACE2 receptors in our own cells.
If the virus spike protein were to at all change, then it would no longer unlock the ACE2 receptors that let the virus in.
The mRNA injections never gave anyone any immunity in the least.
All they do is temporarily increase antibody production in order to clean up all the excess spike proteins left floating around.

 

[WEATHER53]

Why aren't Africans and Amish dying of COVID at an alarming rate?
Why are the hospitals being filled with people who have complications from The Vaccine, like myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, and miscarriages? How come people who are vaxxed are infecting everyone?

Because it’s never been a primary, sincere health issue.

 

[The Original Tree]

Because it’s never been a primary, sincere health issue.

IT was hyped solely for The Election, and I believe Fauci and The CCP were ordered to release COVID by The Obama Administration.

 

[Rigby5]

Lethality for COVID was only 0.00085%, so what should EmperorShitzHizPantz have done in our case?

I agree.
Covid lethality is so low, that accelerating the initial infection spike would have ended it in the first month, with the least number of deaths.
Fauci estimated 2.4 million because he used the incorrect lethality of 2% and took that over the 70% of 330 million total people you need for herd immunity.
The biggest mistake Fauci made was that if you only use volunteers under 40, the death rate drops by a factor of 400 compared to those over 70 who are main group dying.
And 2.4 million drops down to 6 thousand once you divide by 400.

 

[WEATHER53]

Defeat Trump, punish productive Americans, get money to China
All three worked and after 3 dozen other failed hoaxes this success is too delicious for libbies to let go of.

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks Greg.

By not "flattening the curve", like the Africans and Amish, you achieve herd immunity the quickest, which results in the lowest number of deaths.

Essentially the result of "flattening the curve" is to make an epidemic last forever and kill the most people possible.

 

[The Original Tree]

I think the biggest scandal of 2020-2021 is The Biden Administration hiding data from The American People and trying to ban HCQ, Ivermectin, and Monoclonal Antibodies from being prescribed.

This was never a pandemic. Fauci and Biden, and The Democrats made it a scamdemic, killed thousands of people by denying them off the shelf cures and treatments we already have.

That makes The Biden Regime Murderers on a mass scale!

 

[BlindBoo]

By not "flattening the curve", like the Africans and Amish, you achieve herd immunity the quickest, which results in the lowest number of deaths.

Essentially the result of "flattening the curve" is to make an epidemic last forever and kill the most people possible.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't show your source. So let me disagree.

Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of COVID-19 herd immunity strategies

Confronted with escalating COVID-19 outbreaks, countries at the leading edge of the pandemic have had to resort to imposing drastic social distancing measures which have serious societal and economic repercussions. Establishing herd immunity in a population by allowing the epidemic to spread...

www.pnas.org

 

[Rigby5]

I think the biggest scandal of 2020-2021 is The Biden Administration hiding data from The American People and trying to ban HCQ, Ivermectin, and Monoclonal Antibodies from being prescribed.

This was never a pandemic. Fauci and Biden, and The Democrats made it a scamdemic, killed thousands of people by denying them off the shelf cures and treatments we already have.

That makes The Biden Regime Murderers on a mass scale!

I think there had to be a pandemic because not every country in the world could have been in on a conspiracy, but I do believe we should have been able to end it in less than a month.

 

[lantern2814]

Golly! A right-wing think tank said so! It must be true!

Golly a lot of people around the world have said so. Oh wait, your ignorant ass only listens to pedo infested CNN.....

 

[Lesh]

It was largely done to destroy the economy

Damn that Trump.

Why'd he do that then?

 

[Rigby5]

I couldn't help but notice you didn't show your source. So let me disagree.

Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of COVID-19 herd immunity strategies

Confronted with escalating COVID-19 outbreaks, countries at the leading edge of the pandemic have had to resort to imposing drastic social distancing measures which have serious societal and economic repercussions. Establishing herd immunity in a population by allowing the epidemic to spread...

www.pnas.org

Obviously the paper is totally wrong.
Here are their arguments against herd immunity.

{...
Specifically, we found that
1) social distancing must initially reduce the transmission rate to within a narrow range,
2) to compensate for susceptible depletion, the extent of social distancing must be adaptive over time in a precise yet unfeasible way, and
3) social distancing must be maintained for an extended period to ensure the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
...}

1) is totally wrong because you do NOT at all want to "reduce the transmission rate" in order to achieve herd immuniyt, and instead want to accelerate it as much as possible. You would need about 200 million volunteers for deliberate infection, under the age of 40. The death toll then would be fewer than 6000 and it would have been over in a month or so.

2) No social distancing is at all desirable if your goal is herd immunity. To reduce death rates, you totally quarantine the elderly. You know when you are trying to spread the infection, so you know you only have to quarantine the elderly for a very short period of time, like a month.

3)The health care system would not be overwhelmed because deliberate infection of those under 40 is a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 400.
The hospitals would be almost empty.

So essentially they are just lying with a fake straw argument that has nothing at all to do with reality.
Deliberate infection of those under 40 would have had such a low death toll, and been over so quickly, that there would have been almost no impact on society or the hospital system at all.

And incidentally, the reason the hospital system has been over whelmed is that they are not using proper methods.
The only harm comes from an over reaction by the immune system, filling the lungs with phlegm that suffocates the patient.
It is easy to prevent that cytokine storm with corticosteroids that act as immuno suppressants.
But even if you can't, it is easy to prevent suffocation by constantly rotating the patient, in order to drain the lungs, especially face down.
If a person is too weak, then iron lungs are an alternative.
But NOT ventilators.
Ventilator mean intubating down the throat, and that requires a chemically induced coma.
Which is essentially always murder.
No one can ever survive that usually.

So yes, I am saying almost the entire medical community in the US is deliberately enacting inappropriate medical procedures that are equivalent of murder.
Countries not using ventilators have much higher survival rates.

 

[Rigby5]

Damn that Trump.

Why'd he do that then?

Obviously Trump did not.
The whole "flattening the curve" was the CDC over riding Trump.
Trump instead was pushing the appropriate strategy of trying to achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible.
He got over ruled.

 

[struth]

Damn that Trump.

Why'd he do that then?

he didn’t have control of the individual states or the demafacist propagandist giving your “gold standard” andy “grandma killing’” cuomo a voice

 

[MinTrut]

What the Branch Covidians of the left did to America during the last two years will go down as one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

Democrats, not the left.

The left had nothing to do with it.

 

[alang1216]

If only someone had warned us!!


“The economic benefits from more severe actions seem to be related only to reduced COVID cases and not hospitalizations or deaths,” the report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity said.

“The states that put in place more severe restrictions tended to see worse economic outcomes, and did not tend to see better medical outcomes,” SMU Professor Dean Stansel told The College Fix via email.

“Minor changes in the way that a state responds to events like a pandemic could result in hundreds of thousands of people being unable to work and provide,” an article summary said. “While the shutdowns affected all Americans to varying degrees, it’s clear that those most affected were low-income and poor Americans.”

Professor Stansel said these findings are why a targeted approach that would focus on protecting the most vulnerable should have been pursued.

“I think that focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that treated everyone the same despite some being at much greater risk than others, would have done much less harm,” Stansel told The Fix.

MORE: Check out the new cancel culture database

Not every governor had the same lockdown policies as a New York or California, however. “ome states did recognize the problems that severe economic restrictions create and chose to implement less severe restrictions,” the Southern Methodist University economics professor said.

Those that had fewer restrictions, such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, tended to have better economic outcomes but not necessarily worse health results. “Only COVID cases showed a statistically significant association with the severity of governmental actions,” the paper said.

The 510-page report contains a number of graphs and information on the statistical inputs used for the research.

Stansel and his other researchers would like to see government officials take these findings into account in the future.

“Policymakers and governmental authorities need to take this statistical evidence into consideration and be more mindful and cautious when imposing economic restrictions,” the paper said.

Policies should be crafted that “avoid impacting employment more than necessary and …minimize the harm on people’s livelihoods.”

“In practice, the evidence suggests that policies need to be more targeted and allow for more flexibility so business operations and employment may continue as much as possible,” the paper said.

COVID lockdowns did not reduce deaths, but did reduce employment: university researchers | The College Fix

At most the restrictions reduced cases of COVID.

www.thecollegefix.com

Always a good idea to get medical advice from economists.

 

[The Original Tree]

I think there had to be a pandemic because not every country in the world could have been in on a conspiracy, but I do believe we should have been able to end it in less than a month.

Read the book of Revelation. Every nation is in on that conspiracy. I agree though that this was intentionally extended far beyond it needed to be.

 

[The Original Tree]

Obviously the paper is totally wrong.
Here are their arguments against herd immunity.

{...
Specifically, we found that
1) social distancing must initially reduce the transmission rate to within a narrow range,
2) to compensate for susceptible depletion, the extent of social distancing must be adaptive over time in a precise yet unfeasible way, and
3) social distancing must be maintained for an extended period to ensure the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
...}

1) is totally wrong because you do NOT at all want to "reduce the transmission rate" in order to achieve herd immuniyt, and instead want to accelerate it as much as possible. You would need about 200 million volunteers for deliberate infection, under the age of 40. The death toll then would be fewer than 6000 and it would have been over in a month or so.

2) No social distancing is at all desirable if your goal is herd immunity. To reduce death rates, you totally quarantine the elderly. You know when you are trying to spread the infection, so you know you only have to quarantine the elderly for a very short period of time, like a month.

3)The health care system would not be overwhelmed because deliberate infection of those under 40 is a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 400.
The hospitals would be almost empty.

So essentially they are just lying with a fake straw argument that has nothing at all to do with reality.
Deliberate infection of those under 40 would have had such a low death toll, and been over so quickly, that there would have been almost no impact on society or the hospital system at all.

And incidentally, the reason the hospital system has been over whelmed is that they are not using proper methods.
The only harm comes from an over reaction by the immune system, filling the lungs with phlegm that suffocates the patient.
It is easy to prevent that cytokine storm with corticosteroids that act as immuno suppressants.
But even if you can't, it is easy to prevent suffocation by constantly rotating the patient, in order to drain the lungs, especially face down.
If a person is too weak, then iron lungs are an alternative.
But NOT ventilators.
Ventilator mean intubating down the throat, and that requires a chemically induced coma.
Which is essentially always murder.
No one can ever survive that usually.

So yes, I am saying almost the entire medical community in the US is deliberately enacting inappropriate medical procedures that are equivalent of murder.
Countries not using ventilators have much higher survival rates.

I am hearing that hospitals get from $3,000 to upwards to as much as $250,000 to kill COVID patients at their for profit death camps, we used to call Hospitals.

 

[The Original Tree]

Obviously the paper is totally wrong.
Here are their arguments against herd immunity.

{...
Specifically, we found that
1) social distancing must initially reduce the transmission rate to within a narrow range,
2) to compensate for susceptible depletion, the extent of social distancing must be adaptive over time in a precise yet unfeasible way, and
3) social distancing must be maintained for an extended period to ensure the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
...}

1) is totally wrong because you do NOT at all want to "reduce the transmission rate" in order to achieve herd immuniyt, and instead want to accelerate it as much as possible. You would need about 200 million volunteers for deliberate infection, under the age of 40. The death toll then would be fewer than 6000 and it would have been over in a month or so.

2) No social distancing is at all desirable if your goal is herd immunity. To reduce death rates, you totally quarantine the elderly. You know when you are trying to spread the infection, so you know you only have to quarantine the elderly for a very short period of time, like a month.

3)The health care system would not be overwhelmed because deliberate infection of those under 40 is a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 400.
The hospitals would be almost empty.

So essentially they are just lying with a fake straw argument that has nothing at all to do with reality.
Deliberate infection of those under 40 would have had such a low death toll, and been over so quickly, that there would have been almost no impact on society or the hospital system at all.

And incidentally, the reason the hospital system has been over whelmed is that they are not using proper methods.
The only harm comes from an over reaction by the immune system, filling the lungs with phlegm that suffocates the patient.
It is easy to prevent that cytokine storm with corticosteroids that act as immuno suppressants.
But even if you can't, it is easy to prevent suffocation by constantly rotating the patient, in order to drain the lungs, especially face down.
If a person is too weak, then iron lungs are an alternative.
But NOT ventilators.
Ventilator mean intubating down the throat, and that requires a chemically induced coma.
Which is essentially always murder.
No one can ever survive that usually.

So yes, I am saying almost the entire medical community in the US is deliberately enacting inappropriate medical procedures that are equivalent of murder.
Countries not using ventilators have much higher survival rates.

IT'S my contention that The Deaths in this hospitals were intentionally carried out. It's also my contention that COVID was intentionally created and intentionally unleashed on The World and The US to bring about The New Normal.

If True, this makes Obama, Fauci and Biden mass murderers.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Shocking News from the World of Science: COVID lockdowns did not reduce deaths, but did reduce employment.

Glad to see that science finally caught up with conservative news outlets