What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

View attachment 50441

Do you have some weird fetish with stupid memes like this?
Can’t you just argue the topic with words and facts instead of this garbage? Christ it gets old.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

And you obviously have peer-reviewed studies that back up this information.

Can you share them here?

It's like the stolen election, the claim is the proof and the lack of proof just proves there is cover up.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

You don’t understand, because you lack empathy. You don’t understand all of the other obvious consequences that have come from all the covid measures. The nation would’ve been much better off just letting society to continue to function as normal, as covid was never that deadly. It’s f*cking absurd what all we did to destroy the country over a virus that isn’t that deadly, whatsoever. It’s illogical. Covid spread quickly, wasn’t that deadly. People confuse a quick spread with being super deadly, which covid isn’t, therefore the lockdowns made no sense, not to mention all the illegality of so many of the measures.

Tell me more, Jim, about how much you love to lick on your master’s toes:

“A new Johns Hopkins University study published this week found that COVID-19 lockdowns toward the beginning of the pandemic had “little to no effect” on the COVID-19 mortality rate and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy.””

“In other words, the lockdowns were a failure that might have cost more lives than they saved.”

New study confirms COVID-19 lockdowns did more harm than good

A new Johns Hopkins University study published this week found that COVID-19 lockdowns toward the beginning of the pandemic had “little to no effect” on

www.washingtonexaminer.com

And I’ve said before that I can’t trust Trump because of Warp Speed.

@Jimi77

““When it comes to COVID, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned,” he said. “The lives saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.””

“After comparing government interventions of varying strictness levels, the researchers estimated that the average lockdown imposed across Europe and the U.S. in the spring of 2020 reduced mortality by just 3.2%.

“This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States,” they said, describing lockdowns as having had “a negligible effect” when it came to quashing COVID-related deaths. “In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year.””

‘The Money Doctor’ slams COVID lockdowns as the biggest policy mistake in modern times

Former Reagan advisor Steve Hanke co-authored a paper that found the average lockdown reduced COVID-19 mortality rates by 3.2%.

finance.yahoo.com

@Jimi77

You have to keep in mind any covid measure has negative consequences completely unrelated to covid:

““This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.””

“In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:

• Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent;
• Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent;
• Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent;
• Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and
• School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.”

“This negative conclusion is amplified by the significant economic and social costs associated with lockdowns, which include:

• stunted economic growth;
• large increases in public debt;
• rising inequality;
• damage to children’s education and health;
• reduced health-related quality of life;
• damage to mental health;
• increased crime; and
• threats to democracy and loss of freedom.

The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’ to control future pandemics.”

Lockdowns were a costly failure, finds new IEA book

A new systematic review and meta-analysis published by the Institute of Economic Affairs finds that Covid lockdowns failed to significantly … Continue reading "Lockdowns were a costly failure, finds new IEA book"

iea.org.uk

Please tell me more about how you’re saving people by boot licking…

“An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Did none of you pro-covid lockdown idiots read any of these?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

@Jimi77

You have to keep in mind any covid measure has negative consequences completely unrelated to covid:

““This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.””

“In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:

• Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent;
• Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent;
• Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent;
• Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and
• School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.”

“This negative conclusion is amplified by the significant economic and social costs associated with lockdowns, which include:

• stunted economic growth;
• large increases in public debt;
• rising inequality;
• damage to children’s education and health;
• reduced health-related quality of life;
• damage to mental health;
• increased crime; and
• threats to democracy and loss of freedom.

The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’ to control future pandemics.”

Lockdowns were a costly failure, finds new IEA book

A new systematic review and meta-analysis published by the Institute of Economic Affairs finds that Covid lockdowns failed to significantly … Continue reading "Lockdowns were a costly failure, finds new IEA book"

iea.org.uk

Please tell me more about how you’re saving people by boot licking…

So, you would have preferred a lot more deaths, ergo population reduction.

Aren’t you the guy who said people who want the population reduced should start with themselves?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Did none of you pro-covid lockdown idiots read any of these?

WTF do you care about lockdowns? You don’t leave your bed, and you get your SSDI check no matter what.
Except for maybe when the Republicans cause a shutdown?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

So, you would have preferred a lot more deaths, ergo population reduction.

Aren’t you the guy who said people who want the population reduced should start with themselves?

Maybe I should’ve asked you if you can read at all. You certainly didn’t digest what you commented on, lol.

WTF do you care about lockdowns? You don’t leave your bed, and you get your SSDI check no matter what.
Except for maybe when the Republicans cause a shutdown?

Do you have a peer reviewed study proving that I receive a SSDI check? I’m gonna need some proof.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Did none of you pro-covid lockdown idiots read any of these?

If only my crystal ball were working. Luckily the rearview is working.

State Restrictions and the COVID-19 Death Rate | Baker Institute

Researchers explore states' responses to the pandemic and a possible association between the strictness of lockdowns and the COVID-19 death rate.

www.bakerinstitute.org

Covid’s deadly tradeoffs, by the numbers: How each state has fared in the pandemic

POLITICO’s State Pandemic Scorecard shows how state decisions impacted lives, jobs, education and well-being.

www.politico.com

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

WTF do you care about lockdowns? You don’t leave your bed, and you get your SSDI check no matter what.
Except for maybe when the Republicans cause a shutdown?

It's virtue signalling to the other anti-maskers/vaxxers.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

It's virtue signalling to the other anti-maskers/vaxxers.

I faced some minor inconveniences for ~1.5 years to save thousands, probably more lives - doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It's virtue signalling to the other anti-maskers/vaxxers.

LOL. Buck accuses you of virtue signaling but also wants to let us all know his great empathy for the human race.

What a clown.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

View attachment 50443

Which unvaccinated POTUS got COVID, had to be flown to a hospital 19 miles away, underwent experimental medical protocol, and almost died from it?

Which vaccinated POTUS got COVID, and barely skipped a beat?

Go ahead and look it up.
We can wait for your answer.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Which unvaccinated POTUS got COVID, had to be flown to a hospital 19 miles away, underwent experimental medical protocol, and almost died from it?

Which vaccinated POTUS got COVID, and barely skipped a beat?

Go ahead and look it up.
We can wait for your answer.

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first granted emergency use authorization to the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine on December 10, 2020,[6]and mass vaccinations began four days later.”

COVID-19 vaccination in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Trump got covid before the vaccines were even available, and Trump got covid earlier on, which means he might’ve gotten a more severe variant.

Biden 'continues to feel well' after testing positive for COVID-19 again: Doctor

President Joe Biden's antigen test came back positive late Saturday morning, White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor said.

abcnews.go.com

Notice how Biden got rebound covid after having covid initially, despite being vaccinated multiple times, which isn’t surprising, because the vaccines lower your immunity to covid/damage the immune system. Trump caught covid once, and he didn’t seem to get it again, because natural immunity is superior. It doesn’t matter if Biden gets covid, anyways, because he’s not running the White House, lol. Biden doesn’t have a beat to skip, even in the best of his health.