I trust no one on this forum is surprised.. I just read the following: A Johns Hopkins University study found the original Covid-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020 had “little to no” effect on mortality. The meta-analysis looked at interventions such as school and business closures, travel bans, and efforts to limit gatherings to determine if there is empirical evidence to support lockdowns. According to the study, “lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality,” and in the U.S. and Europe, “only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% on average.” One intervention that had “some effect” in terms of reducing Covid-19 mortality by 10.6 percent was the closing of non-essential businesses, “which is likely to be related to the closure of bars," the three researchers from Denmark, Sweden, and the United States write. What the lockdowns did do is have “enormous economic and social costs.” Source Aside that much of the covid data can't be trusted, I suspect the truth is closer to "the Lockdown Increased mortaility" for all the obvious reasons. You had to be less than brilliant to not see this coming.
I would agree @John West that the lockdowns probably increased the overall mortality. It will be difficult to obtain hard data to support the thought though. Suicides certainly rose due to the isolation, and the critical medical conditions that went untreated also increased the death toll.
Related Health & Wellness Discoveries To Watch For: The extent to which vaccinations have no or negative efficacy. Increasing number of negative vaccine side effects,. Unforeseen problems caused by masking The increasing importance of natural immunity.
If you want the truth about the covid BS that's going on, search img8238. It's a large group of nurses meeting with a senator. The nurse talking tells it like it is.
That's not unlike stories I got from some local nurses around here. They're less bound by political and insurance company pressures to follow the party line.
"Watching" for that stuff ain't gonna work because it won't be shown...you have to seek it out. I posted a link earlier to an American Heart Association article anticipating a spike in congenital heart defects starting in the year 2025. You and I both know the reason behind this and how the AHA is able to cite a specific date. But the AHA is blaming "Climate Change." The repression of basic facts on this stuff it as telling as it is chilling. Children are not only being injured on many levels, they are literally being killed. And our "media" is silent.
Maybe I've totally lost it, but I'm sure someone here can help me find it. What do we have to compare to? I mean, how do we gauge the number of people that die if we didn't shut down?
Ok, thanks, that makes it more clear, but why don't they compare that in the article and wait a sec, didn't everyone shut-down in 2020? I'm sure not everyone, but no, this doesn't answer for me I guess ;(
I remember looking at the death statistics for maybe the last 5 years, and the amount of people who died each year from the flu was almost identical to the people who are now recorded as having died from covid. The flu deaths were only listed as some minuscule number, like 1-2 thousand people , because every similar death that would have been counted as a flu death before was now counted as a covid death. Both the common cold, the flu viruses, and covid are all considered a corona virus, so if the covid test simply verifies that you have corona virus, that is not really giving us much information. That being said, I do think that there are at least 2-3 versions of this virus going around. Some people have covid and describe it as like having a cold, while other people are dying from it, who should easily survive a cold, and are strong and healthy. Probably most of the elderly people who have died with some kind of corona virus would have died, regardless of what name it was called by; but they took a covid test and it was labeled as covid. Hospitals (and maybe doctors?) get paid thousands of dollars extra for treating covid patients, so it is to the benefit of the hospital to do a test, even when the person might be dying of underlying causes, like cancer or a bad heart condition, but they show a positive result when tested for covid.
Of course, the sycophants will insist that the lockdowns failed because they didn't reach 100% compliance. Drug overdoses, domestic violence, and suicides were up, I'm sure. Plus, how many people died from actual maladies, not created in a test tube, because they were unable to see their physician?
So what do you think, are Californians going to put up with another bout of lockdowns? Are Americans? Could this possibly be a warmup toward using COVID to steal another presidential election? It worked last time and there have been no repercussions.
One of my wife's close friends is a school counselor. She said that incidents of troubled children and violence has double this year over pre-pandemic levels. It adds credence to claims that the children were the ones who suffered most and gained least from the lockdowns.
You might be easily persuaded to think that Californians will, Like New Yorkers and Chicago folk, put up with just about anything the party and media tell them to. The rest of the country - not so likely.
My son lives in California and, at the height of the Covid lockdowns, he said only about half the people in the stores he visited were following the mask restrictions. Vaccinations might be another thing but, if I were living in California and unvaccinated, I wouldn't be talking about it. When I ran an online newspaper, I had a reporter who was living in China and teaching ESL courses. He said that the Chinese people tolerate government restrictions by ignoring most of them but being quiet about it.