Isn’t there an alternative hypothesis that more parsimoniously explains the evidence? Namely that lockdowns don’t work?
Because what you have to believe for the hypothesis you advocate is that a) lockdowns miraculously worked early on, then b) lockdowns failed mysteriously. The miraculous effect is explained by government effectiveness early on, while the mysterious later failure is attributed to vague “political adversaries”.
Separately, wouldn’t it be the case that in politics all sides typically assert their opponents engage in “destructive political activism”.
To turn back to a more quantitative assessment of lockdown effectiveness, is there any credible evidence of consistent effectiveness? To my knowledge, the answer is “no”, unless you accept the version that is operationalized in China. Even that requires ignoring the cost vs. benefit calculation, unless one assigns significant value to the political upside associated with maintaining the optics of administrative control.
I believe this is correct and consequently think masks are marginally effective in reducing airborne spread. Controlling for the many variables makes it very difficult to design and carry out credible studies. My own approach is that - probably due to my normalcy bias (I have worked in hospital OR’s wearing masks for 60 years) - I consider it a minimal burden, personally. I believe that wearing them, however, ought not be mandated by the state; suggested - yes, coerced - NO. When it comes to state mandates, we have gone far beyond ‘slippery slopes’: our betters no longer hesitate to push us off cliffs. We must resist every state mandate going forward, as they no longer accept any limitations to their power to compel - acts, words or mere thoughts. I no longer see any peaceful means of stemming the present fascist american (sic) tyranny.
Absent supporting evidence including data and facts, it’s tempting to turn the discussion to ad-hominem broadsides against the interlocutor’s assumed lack of education, reading, and general intelligence ability.
It’s perfectly fine in my view to question evidence and data and how we make sense of what we think we know. And no, appeals to “science!” don’t magically make stuff true just because it’s been published in journals or discussed at conferences or is based on surveys or modeling results.
When you take a break from putting down dissenting comments, consider taking a peek at the “book of knowledge” section on the so-called replication crisis (source)
Professor Shmuel Shapira, M.D., MPH, served as the Director General of the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) between 2013 and 2021, where he led Israel’s effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine.
Last week, Twitter censored Prof. Shapira—who was "physically injured” after his third Pfizer vaccine—and forced him to remove a post which said: “Monkey pox cases were rare for years. During the last years a single case was documented in Israel. It is well established the mRNA vaccines affect the natural immune system. A monkey pox outbreak following massive covid vaccination: *Is not a coincidence.”
It is revealing of the CDC’s deceptive intent that the “fact” was removed altogether rather than being replaced by a true statement like “the spike protein remains in the body for months after vaccination” or even a humble admission such as “we don’t know how long the spike protein lasts in the body.”
The CDC does not acknowledge the change at all. The top of the webpage reads “Updated July 15, 2022” both before and after the edit.
There’s no excess mortality that would arise because of vaccination. There is a beneficial effect of lockdowns, but obviously one can’t stretch that indefinitely.
The problem isn’t the one of vaccines, the problem is the vaxxmaxx narrative resulting in stories like
“I’m a product of science. I have minimal symptoms because of vaccines and antivirals,” he said.
As a result we’re getting the revenue-maximizing best-case scenario for the health-industrial complex.
An interesting short conversation with a representative of the Nobel Foundation and Katalin Karikó. For her, the Nobel Prize signifies not only the pinnacle of her career but also professional recognition that had long eluded her within the scientific community.
She recalled moments from ten years ago when she was dismissed and forced into retirement:
However, her passion for science remained strong. With the support of her husband, she continued her career in Germany, where she resumed her research, even though she was already 58 years old, conducting experiments in the laboratory on her own.
She also mentioned that her mother, who passed away a few years ago, eagerly awaited the announcement of Nobel laureates every year, even though Katalin did not hold the title of professor, let alone her own research group.
In conclusion, she emphasized that in life, we should focus on things we can change and not be overly burdened by comparisons with others or the perceived injustices that may seem to be happening to us. This approach to life and science has significantly contributed to her achievements.
BioNTech…mRNA…seems to ring a bell… wasn’t there a pharma company that used this to produce a ‘vaccine’ that harms more than it helped? Or maybe that’s just me.
Indeed. Reminds me of a recent Nobel Peace Prize laureate awarded the medal for unclear reasons (link)
Katalin Kariko’s personal story does tug at one heart’s strings. And it’s not clear to this correspondent how much the research for which she was awarded the Nobel prize is directly connected to the injection product manufactured by Pfizer. You know, the one that, among other things, came with updated dictionary definitions
Smallpox was highly infectious, with no known cure. It began as early as 1350 BCE, with cases being found in the study of Egyptian mummies.
The ancient practice of variolation (named for smallpox, also known as variola or ‘la variole’) was widely used in Asia and some parts of Africa.
This consisted of transferring to healthy people small amounts of material from smallpox sores, resulting in milder forms of illness and much lower mortality than natural infection. Some sources suggest practices of variolation were taking place as early as 200 BCE.
On this note, I have learned about the practice of insufflation:
Written accounts from the mid-1500s describe a form of variolation used in China known as insufflation, where smallpox scabs were dried, ground and blown into the nostril using a pipe.
So it turns out there was a propaganda angle after all…
Paragraph 9 in this piece lets the quiet part out.
Aside from honoring a discovery that opened a new research avenue, the Nobel Prize might have a practical impact on uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, suggests Olle Kämpe, vice chair of the committee that chose the winners of this year’s award. Although Kämpe believes it’s unlikely that people who are firmly against vaccines will have second thoughts, he expects “giving a Nobel Prize for this COVID-19 vaccine can make hesitant people take the vaccine and be sure that it’s very efficient and it’s safe.”
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Captain Louis Renault
"Your winnings, sir..."
Random waiter
