Meme - Supervaccinated person and normal person both thinking: "Why aren't they dead yet?"
Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics? - "The present coronavirus crisis caused a major worldwide disruption which has not been experienced for decades. The lockdown-based crisis management was implemented by nearly all the countries, and studies confirming lockdown effectiveness can be found alongside the studies questioning it. In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth. Our aim was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic."
In July 2024, a covid hystericist still claimed that the IFR for covid was 4% and that "A totally dispassionate, objective and scientific response to a respiratory pandemic would involve essentially the same measures". Covid hystericists don't learn.
Did the Covid inquiry just admit lockdown was a mistake? - "The Covid inquiry has this afternoon published a full report on its first module, assessing the resilience and preparedness of the UK’s pandemic response. It has so far been met with apparently predetermined headlines of how the UK Government failed its citizens by “preparing for the wrong pandemic”, and that the country was “ill-prepared”. The impact of austerity meant that this was certainly true — but the currently unreported and biggest story in the report is its wholesale attack on the lockdown approach itself. Baroness Hallett’s full report contains remarkable criticisms of the Government’s preferred lockdown policy, which was also adopted across the world. Far from stating that the UK should have locked down sooner and harder, as many predicted, Hallett’s team has concluded that “the imposition of a lockdown should be a measure of last resort […] indeed, there are those who would argue that a lockdown should never be imposed.” Strikingly, the initial media reactions have barely anything to say about the report’s conclusions on lockdowns, just as the word “lockdown” was not mentioned once in the WHO’s September 2019 report on non-pharmaceutical interventions in pandemics. This is because, though it’s long been an article of faith in these circles that earlier and harder lockdowns were the solution, this is not the conclusion that the report comes to. Instead, Baroness Hallett has concluded that there were devastating failings in imposing lockdown in the first place. First, the report highlights the fact that lockdowns were untested as a means for responding to a pandemic. One section notes that former chancellor George Osborne “said that no one had thought that a policy response up to and including lockdowns was possible until China had commenced one in 2020, and so there was no reason for the Treasury to plan for it”. This confirms the initial reports in outlets such as the Washington Post that China’s response was “unprecedented”. There is also extensive weight given to the evidence of epidemiologist Professor Mark Woolhouse of Edinburgh University, who is quoted as telling the inquiry that lockdown “was an ad hoc public health intervention contrived in real time in the face of a fast-moving public health emergency. We had not planned to introduce lockdown […] there were no guidelines for when a lockdown should be implemented and no clear expectations as to what it would achieve.” Even more importantly, the report for the first module emphasises that one of the failures of the “ad hoc” lockdown approach was that its novelty meant there was no time to interrogate its consequences. The inquiry notes that “if countermeasures in the form of non-pharmaceutical interventions are not considered in advance […] their potential side effects will not be subject, in advance, to rigorous scrutiny.” In other words, the imposition of ill-prepared policies meant that there was no chance for politicians and the public to interrogate what the consequences would be, a weakness the UK Government has only acknowledged since the end of the pandemic. The report goes on to refer to the work of the new UK-wide Pandemic Diseases Capabilities Board (PDCB), which noted the upshot of this failure of a cost-benefit analysis. Hallett’s team quotes the PDCB’s summary that the current assessments “do not include a full risk assessment for the use of [non-pharmaceutical interventions]. Given that the imposition of lockdown in part accounted for a 25% drop in GDP between February and April 2020, the largest drop on record, and numerous secondary and tertiary impacts on all sectors, this represents a significant gap in the UK’s assessment of pandemic risk.” And so the real story of Hallett’s report is not that the UK was prepared for the “wrong pandemic”, but that it resorted to a hitherto-unimaginable policy, on no evidence-base, where the risks were not fully assessed. The real story is the report’s analysis that lockdowns should only be resorted to in future as “a last resort”, and quite possibly should never be resorted to at all. While there are gaps — the UK government’s own evidence that its Test and Trace system reduced Covid infections by at most 5% at a cost of UK£29.3 billion isn’t discussed — today’s report of Module 1 delivers a devastating blow to the lockdown consensus. It offers an admirable discussion of the many factors to be balanced in a health emergency, citing former chief medical officer Sally Davies and her advocacy of a need to “balance the biomedical model”, so that Government decision-makers receive advice from a wider range of perspectives. This would include economic impact, social wellbeing, and the effect on children and young people in education. The report pulls the rug from under those whose declamations were taken as quasi-religious pronouncements throughout the terrible years of the pandemic. The real question to emerge is whether the media will honestly report what Hallett’s team has actually said — and what the consequences of this should be."
Jay Bhattacharya on X - "In Fall 2020, German ethics professor @chluetge pointed out the obvious immorality of lockdown for the lives of children and the poor. German state authorities, in the grip of a zero-covid delusion, fired the ethics professor from its ethics board. Sweden protected human life better than Germany without locked and with less collateral damage. The German authorities should have listened to the ethics professor rather than narrow minded virologists like @c_drosten who lacked expertise and judgement."
High rates of COVID are causing outbreaks, rising hospitalizations and deaths heading into the school year : r/ottawa - "Honestly, wouldn't mind covid lockdowns again. Empty roads, wfh, chill environment. Any based redditors feel the same?"
Clearly, inflation is the result of corporate greed
High rates of COVID are causing outbreaks, rising hospitalizations and deaths heading into the school year : r/ottawa - "Swiss cheese theory! Add in masking, sanitization, social distancing, capacity limits during peak COVID months, changing work and social culture to be more inclusive instead of isolationist and all of these things would greatly increase our health and help minimize COVID. Every room should have a screen indicating its CO2 levels to help you make informed decisions, and companies should be held to high standards to keep the cleanest air possible. This wouldn't just help with COVID but many airborne illnesses like the flu and cold."
The covid hystericists are still at it
Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis - "COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to myocarditis, which, in some circumstances, can be fatal. This systematic review aims to investigate potential causal links between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis using post-mortem analysis. We performed a systematic review of all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis through 3 July 2023. All autopsy studies that include COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis as a possible cause of death were included. Causality in each case was assessed by three independent physicians with cardiac pathology experience and expertise. We initially identified 1691 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 14 papers that contained 28 autopsy cases. The cardiovascular system was the only organ system affected in 26 cases. In two cases, myocarditis was characterized as a consequence from multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The mean age of death was 44.4 years old. The mean and median number of days from last COVID-19 vaccination until death were 6.2 and 3 days, respectively. We established that all 28 deaths were most likely causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination by independent review of the clinical information presented in each paper. The temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis, suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis."
Meme - "REMEMBER WHEN THEY OUTLAWED FRESH AIR & SUNSHINE BECAUSE THEY CARED ABOUT YOUR HEALTH? *Park bench with tape on it*"
One cope is that it was a pandemic. Clearly during a pandemic, any measure supposedly taken in the name of public health - even one contradicted by the science - is justified
Other copes include mocking people who criticise this as covidiots or selfish
Chinese lab linked to Covid leak may have also released ANOTHER deadly virus, new research claims - "A bombshell new study suggests that this polio strain, which infected a four-year-old boy amid a wider viral outbreak in China's Anhui province, is '99 percent' identical to a polio variant that was stored 200 miles away, during that same time period, at the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology. Researchers at France's Pasteur Institute cannot say with certainty where this strain, dubbed 'WIV14,' originated. But they insisted two possibilities 'must be explored' — including the chance that WIV14 polio originated within the Wuhan institute itself."
China 'carried out disinformation campaign to force world economy into lockdown', says US lawyer in extraordinary theory - "Michael Senger suggested the Communist Party promoted nationwide shutdowns in a bid to "cripple rival economies" amid the coronavirus pandemic... Senger however claims the Communist Party may have weaponised social media in an aggressive psy-op to spread hysteria to push for the lockdowns. The campaign may have pushed nations into committing economic suicide. He points to thousands of tweets which were encouraging world governments to try out the draconian rules first adopted by China. Senger even alleges Prime Minister Boris Johnson was targeted by Chinese disinformation after he first suggested herd immunity rather than a lockdown. The lawyer, from Atlanta, Georgia, laid out his theory in an article for Tablet Magazine titled "China's Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign". Writing on Twitter, he said: "By promoting fraudulent data, aggressively deploying disinformation, and flexing its institutional clout, Beijing transformed the snake oil of lockdowns into ‘science’, crippling rival economies, expanding its influence and sowing authoritarian values." He argued lockdowns "might not even be science it all" and claimed they are based on brutal policies used by Chinese leader Xi Jinping... Senger claimed it was a "domino effect" of country's following China's policy after Italy became the first nation to lockdown. Senger said: "Is there something more sinister behind this? Was this actually planned so it would crash rival economies and spread authoritarian values?" WHO described the lockdown of Wuhan as "unprecedented" in January, before actively encouraging other nations to follow China's lead just one month later. Senger claims the "smoking gun on the genesis of the coronavirus lockdown" is the fact Twitter removed tens of thousands of fake accounts promoting China's message. Twitter confirmed in June it had took down 23,750 accounts which were "highly engaged" in disinformation - and 150,000 which were engaged in amplification. The social media giant confirmed the accounts were deleted as they were promoting China's response to the coronavirus outbreak. Tweets included videos of Chinese workers disinfecting streets - each of which were accompanied by suspiciously similar messages praising in China. Senger writes much of this campaign was focused on bombarding Italy as it went into lockdown - sparking much of the rest of the world to follow. He also brands videos began emerging from China earlier in the pandemic, including people collapsing in the street with scenes reminiscent of apocalypse movies as "fake". Speaking of Sky News Australia, Senger said: "The only purpose behind these is to spread fear. To show this virus is really, really scary." And the lawyer accuses China of having "fake numbers" over the virus, with its figures "manifestly forged"... Senger claims the Britain's Prime Minister may have been targeted by misinformation when he suggested using herd immunity to beat the virus. He wrote: "On March 13, suspicious accounts began storming his Twitter feed and likening his plan to genocide. "This language almost never appears in Johnson’s feed before March 12, and several of the accounts were hardly active before then." FBI officials also revealed in July that US politicians had been approached by the Communist Party to endorse China's strategy on coronavirus. Chris Wray, FBI director, said: "We have heard from federal, state and even local officials that Chinese diplomats are aggressively urging support for China’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis. "Yes, this is happening at both the federal and state levels. Not that long ago, we had a state senator who was recently even asked to introduce a resolution supporting China’s response to the pandemic."... "The most benign possible explanation for the CCP’s campaign for global lockdowns is that the party aggressively promoted the same lie internationally as domestically – that lockdowns worked. "And then there’s the possibility that by shutting down the world, Xi Jinping, who … envisions a socialist future with China at its centre, knew exactly what he was doing.""
Richard Hanania on X - "People who took Wegovy were 33% less likely to die from Covid, and the effect kicked in before they even lost weight. They were 19% less likely to die of all causes. Incredible. The evidence is accumulating that it might be a good idea for everyone to be on this."
Obesity Drug Wegovy Prevents Covid Deaths, Study Suggests - The New York Times
Man, 34, died of cancer after GPs dismissed concerns, inquest hears - "Oliver Philpott, 34, called his GP practice at least six times during the Covid 19 lockdown complaining of severe pain in his back and long-term fatigue. Instead of being seen by a doctor in a face-to-face appointment, he was repeatedly assessed over the phone. He finally saw his GP at the medical centre four months after he first reported symptoms, but tragically died three days later. A post mortem later found the 34-year-old had a large 20cm tumour wrapped around his heart and lungs. The aggressive sarcoma had infiltrated his right lung and had eventually caused pulmonary emboli which caused a heart attack that killed him. In a double family tragedy, his father, Anthony - wracked by guilt and grief over the death of his son - took his own life. Today at an inquest into Oliver's death in Hastings, his doctor, Fiona Warner, said Covid 19 had restricted the number of patients doctors could see face-to-face."
Monsters! Why do they want grandma to have died?!
Meme - "While he locked you down, this communist czar was spreading aids"
"WATCH: NYC'S FORMER CORONAVIRUS ADVISER SAYS HE ATTENDED SEX PARTIES DURING PANDEMIC TO 'BLOW OFF STEAM'"
WATCH: NYC's Former Coronavirus Adviser Had Sex Parties During Pandemic - "New York City’s former coronavirus adviser, Dr. Jay Varma, apparently had parties involving sex and drugs during the pandemic, according to secretly recorded footage of him speaking about the instances... Varma said he was the one who convinced de Blasio to issue the vaccine mandate... It is important to note that a New York State judge ruled in October 2022 the city employees fired for not taking the coronavirus vaccine must be reinstated and given backpay because the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional, according to Breitbart News. Per the recent Post article, Varma has said he takes responsibility for not using the “best judgment” while also saying the private conversations were taken out of context."
The Real Lesson of Jay Varma's COVID Sex-Party Scandal - The Atlantic (aka "Public-Health Officials Should Have Been Talking About Their Sex Parties the Whole Time")
Right on cue...
The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong? - "It sounds absurd that an obscure US company with a hastily constructed website could have driven international health policy and brought major clinical trials to a halt within the span of a few weeks. Yet that’s what happened earlier this year, when Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation began a publishing spree that would trigger one of the largest scientific scandals of the COVID-19 pandemic to date. At the heart of the deception was a paper published in The Lancet on May 22 that suggested hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug promoted by US President Donald Trump and others as a therapy for COVID-19, was associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalized with the disease. The study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial—the gold standard for determining a drug’s safety and efficacy—but it did purportedly draw from an enormous registry of observational data that Surgisphere claimed to have collected from the electronic medical records of nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients across 671 hospitals on six continents. The study was a medical and political bombshell. News outlets analyzed the implications for what they referred to as the “drug touted by Trump.” Within days, public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) instructed organizers of clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment or prophylaxis to suspend recruitment, while the French government reversed an earlier decree allowing the drug to be prescribed to patients hospitalized with the virus. Before long, however, cracks started appearing in the study—and in Surgisphere itself. Scientists and journalists noted that the Lancet paper’s data included impossibly high numbers of cases—exceeding official case or death counts for some continents and coming implausibly close for others. Similar data discrepancies were also identified in two previous studies that had relied on the company’s database. Inquiries by The Scientist and The Guardian, meanwhile, failed to identify any hospital that had contributed to the registry. It also emerged that, for a company claiming to have created one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated patient databases, Surgisphere had little in the way of medical research to show for it. Founded by vascular surgeon Sapan Desai in 2008 and employing only a handful of people at a time, the company initially produced textbooks aimed at medical students. It later dabbled in various projects, including a short-lived medical journal, before shooting to fame this year with its high-profile publications on health outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The provenance of Surgisphere’s database—if it even exists, which many clinicians, journal editors, and researchers have questioned—has yet to become clear. Most of Desai’s coauthors admitted to having only seen summary data, and independent auditors tasked with verifying the database’s validity were never granted access, leading to the June 4 retractions of the Lancet study and a previous paper based on the database in The New England Journal of Medicine. Over the following days, The Scientist and other media outlets pointed out inaccurate claims made on Surgisphere’s website, which it had launched in February and gradually erased as accusations of fraud mounted. Desai, who spoke to The Scientist at the end of May, is no longer responding to requests for comment... While a heightened sense of urgency during the pandemic undoubtedly contributed to the problem, there were many people and institutions that theoretically could have prevented Surgisphere’s effects on science and public health, notes Rachel Cooper, the director of the Health Initiative at the nonprofit organization Transparency International. Desai’s astonishing influence on COVID-19 policy was dependent on multiple parties, Cooper notes, from the institutions that employed him to the coauthors on his research studies, the journals that published the work, and the organizations that issued public health decisions based on his research. Seen that way, the scandal represents “a perfect storm of issues that have always been there”"
From 2020. If you don't Trust the Science (and we all know that the Science is Settled), you are a conspiracy theorist, science denier and spreading misinformation
Trump Promoted Hydroxychloroquine, A Drug Now Linked To 17,000 Deaths
Those Published “17,000 Hydroxychloroquine Deaths” Never Happened - "The CDC describes HCQ as “a relatively well tolerated medicine” and that “HCQ can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers” referring to its long-term use in chronic diseases. Basic logic dictates that, if a drug is safe for long-term use, it would also be safe for short-term use, including (and especially) in Covid-19 early treatment/pre-exposure prophylaxis type indications. These are pharmacology fundamentals that ought to be known by any pharmacist or physician – let alone to a professor serving as a Journal Editor-in-Chief at a taxpayer-funded state College of Pharmacy. Did not even one person on her editorial board of over 50 “peer-reviewers” and staff ponder the celebrated and storied history of HCQ (and its predecessors) and how incongruent this study’s findings were before choosing to publish data denigrating HCQ safety? The correct answer to that might actually be: “no”… The publishing editorial board all seem to be laboratory bench (non-clinical) research scientists, per their biographies. Although the board does promote itself as meeting DEI requirements of being “gender diverse,” a more important question might be is if they have the appropriate credentials and experience to review and opine on clinically complex drug safety/epidemiology subject matters in the first place... there were never “17,000 deaths;” it was always a hypothetical extrapolation of people that could have died, based on “unreliable” (eg, actually, fraudulent) databases on top of the previously mentioned, problematic late-stage RECOVERY-trial-type dosing and timing. Still, Josh Cohen, a Forbes.com PhD senior healthcare columnist, used this publication to headline an absurdly biased op-ed against HCQ, stating that Trump’s HCQ proposal was “Linked To 17,000 Deaths.” Forbes’ Tufts, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania- trained “healthcare analyst” misrepresented or appeared to not understand the now-retracted study methodology or projections. It went downhill from there. Mere hours following the publication, very similar, now objectively inaccurate, highly politicized, and seemingly coordinated attacks on HCQ and Trump were published by: The Hill, Politico, Frontline News, Scripps News, the Guardian, KFF Health News, News Nation, Newsweek, AOL.com, Yahoo News, and Daily Kos, in addition to a multitude of prominent regional, international, and US federal news outlets, many falsely estimating that 17,000 deaths had already taken place and that the (imaginary) victims’ blood was already on Donald Trump’s hands... Here are some screenshots of headlines referencing non-existent deaths based on a now-retracted study... Almost immediately following the January 2, 2024 publication, its critical flaws including basic miscalculations among many other deficiencies were brought to the attention of Dr. Townsend by Xavier Azalbert and non-profit BonSens.org attorneys starting on Jan 7, 2024. In fact, a total of 9 communications were sent by the above individuals, but none of them were ever shared as “Letters to The Editor” by Dr. Townsend in good faith to inform readers of specific potential shortcomings, as is otherwise commonly done. Dr. Townsend seemed to forget that bad medical data and publications can do actual patient harm, and kept legitimate and important study criticisms to herself. Instead of taking responsibility and making a leadership decision, she passed the buck to a Committee on Publication Ethics, delaying the needed retraction. It appallingly took 234 days (~7 months, from the January 2nd publication to August 26th) for Dr. Townsend’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy to finally retract the “unreliable” article. But at that point, untold millions around the world had already been (and continue to be) polluted with outrageously incorrect information about non-existent HCQ deaths. This raises some questions about Dr. Townsend’s duties and responsibilities as the Editor in Chief"
Kevin Bass PhD MS on X - "Deborah Birx from her memoir, explaining how "two weeks to flatten the curve" was just marketing for harsh, months-long lockdowns that she was really planning: "On Monday and Tuesday [March 9th and 10th, 2020]…we worked simultaneously to develop the flatten-the-curve guidance I hoped to present to the vice president at week’s end. Getting buy-in on the simple mitigation measures every American could take was just the first step leading to longer and more aggressive interventions. We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown. … No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.""
The "myth" of the slippery slope strikes again
Thread by @GeauxGabrielle on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - " The revisionist history of COVID is crazy but I was there. I journaled through it. I screenshot through it. We were (and still are) living through history. And as an epidemiologist I want future generations to know how fucking stupid and selfish you dumb sons of bitches were Don’t talk to me about a goddamn fucking thing I’m doing. Y’all do not know me. People who DO know I be COVID conscious down."
From 2024. Covid hysteria is still raging
Kevin Bass PhD MS on X - "2023 meta-analysis of 40 high-quality studies: COVID death rate in 2020 for people younger than 70 was 0.07%. 1-in-1500. We locked down for that? We created massive learning loss in children for that? We forced everyone to take a novel mRNA vaccine, that didn't stop transmission, for that? We destabilized our society and economy and created runaway inflation for that? We destroyed countless small businesses and participated in the largest wealth transfer to elites in history for that? We implemented mass censorship for that? We fired and canceled hundreds of thousands of people for that? We decimated trust in medicine and public health for that?"
Mankosmash on X - "At the time, I was getting banned on Reddit for pointing to evidence that the case fatality rate was about 0.2%. The media was saying the CFR was over 2% to scare people. Supposedly credible "experts" were "conceding" that it was over 0.5%. We knew this all AT THE TIME."
As usual, the covid hystericists got very upset by peer reviewed research exposing their delusions
Ironic. Even Fauci knew this in 2020, that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively"
Meme - Puritans burning witches at the stake: "Oops, turns out the masks and vaxes were pointless"
Puritans to fire (the witches are dead): "Mistakes were made on both sides"