justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/21/21 at 09:27:01:


I don't think this has been adequately discussed.

Eegore wrote on 12/22/21 at 19:12:13:


Why do you think,
groups,
do not  "follow the science"
When the, ‘Science’ is.

More Guns = Less Crime

Giving more money to people that commit most of the crimes in a area,
will not stop the crime in that area.

When more votes are tallied, than recorded eligible voters in a District,
it is a very good indication of, voter fraud.

That banning one kind of Firearm,
will not stop crime.

That allowing Citizens to carry  concealed firearms,
does not turn that area into a, ‘Wild West’.

That releasing people form Jail,
will not reduce crime.

That it is just as safe to do,
Weddings/Funerals/Reunions/etc.
as it is to go into a ‘big box’ store.

That a S/A revolver, (which is not broken) can not be fired,
without pulling the trigger.

AND ON, And on, and on

A tyrant stifles dissent.


From the Wall Street Journal:

The tale unfolded in October 2020 after the launch of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement by Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called “focused protection” of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declaration—if they were able to learn about it.

The liberal establishment suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration, largely by ignoring it. Debt Star technocrats like Fauci and Collins took a more active approach.

“This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists . . . seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,” Dr. Collins wrote [to Fauci]. “Is it underway?”

“Fringe” is technocratese for “dissident.”

A week after his email, Dr. Collins spoke to the Washington Post about the Great Barrington Declaration. “This is a fringe component of epidemiology,” he said. “This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous.”

What really is dangerous is white collar thugs like Collins and Fauci politicizing science and suppressing debate.

Dr. Fauci replied to Dr. Collins that the takedown was underway. …

Dr. Fauci also emailed an article from the Nation, a left-wing magazine, and his staff sent him several more. The emails suggest a feedback loop: The media cited Dr. Fauci as an unquestionable authority, and Dr. Fauci got his talking points from the media. Facebook censored mentions of the Great Barrington Declaration. This is how groupthink works.

Recalcitrant scientists of the “Eppur si muove” type aren’t imprisoned these days. They aren’t even forced to listen to Collins singing and strumming his guitar. Soft tyrannies have soft takedowns. These make ideological conformity a prerequisite for career success and even continued employment.

Similar takedowns can be expected as necessary to keep everyone on the same page regarding the global warming hoax. Any scientist skeptical about a policy of controlling the weather by wasting taxpayer money on electric cars and other inefficient boondoggles will be dismissed as “fringe” and canceled.

On a tip from Varla.

You declare it worthless, but the many scientists who signed on? Naah,
You dismiss it,
They said things that are unsupported!

Reee!!!

Like
Get the Jab! You won't get sick!
Hell, vaccination is not stopping people from getting it, spreading it or dying from it.
You don't have a desire to stop Their free speech.
But the Fringe Scientists, ohh,well, they made claims,,

Fine American position.

We NEED other ideas. And they proposed some good things.
But the narrative was more important than thinking.
No debate. No real smart tactics, just
Everyone Stay Home!
Well, except strippers and Wal-Mart workers,,
No Church!

I was never real good at following rules I don't agree with.

The Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

Terrible, just terrible,, and to stifle it,, absolutely necessary, before the people start thinking. V

I never said it was The Answer.

I said squashing it instead of having the conversation was Wrong.

And Fauci did.

Covid was really really deadly and killed a bunch of people we would be sitting here asking why these idiots even entertained the GBD (and similar) ideas that had no proof of what they claimed

But since it never was, never looked like that kind of threat, and the bully pulpit was used to crush any other ideas, from treatment to what kinds of responses we needed to use, it's obvious Now and was obvious then, that having the conversation was right.
It's time to stop believing in Experts who seriously are Not Producing.
Look around, THINK, read what nurses are saying.
Can I PROVE it? Nope,, but I know what I'm hearing. The things I'm seeing. The jabs are dangerous and long term effects are completely unknown.

Calling it a good idea
Doesn't look like a good idea.

FWIW, my daughter, a traveling nurse, is jabbed. She said she has experienced some odd pain, and stops the conversation. She won't talk about it.
You decide what you believe.
I've been watching things for decades. The,, ohh, I spelled it out a few days ago. The push to accept is greater than any other time.
Sufficient reason to say no.

Recovering from covid, having the antibodies,, nobody cares.
I saw the rebuttal.
I'm calling bullshit.

Just like

Fauci, Gates, Ghebreyesus, Redfield, Walensky, +, +, +,
the majority the Media,
State medical  ‘woke’ shepol,
‘Trolls’ on private forms, and Social media platforms.

All did !


 Yes.  

 Billy broke a window.

 You mean just like Bobby did!!??

 Yes.  Just like Bobby did.