Epidemiologist: Why Lockdowns Are The Wrong Policy

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by hcap

First assassinating covid truthers like you. Repeating dangerous Trumpuian bullshit.

How is it that this guy keeps getting away with posting abominable statements such as this, while others sometimes fare a lot worse for a lot less?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

How is it that this guy keeps getting away with posting abominable statements such as this, while others sometimes fare a lot worse for a lot less?

He's a liberal. Hate speech by a lib is always permitted. It's only perceived hate speech by righties that automatically get censored.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by boxcar

He's a liberal. Hate speech by a lib is always permitted. It's only perceived hate speech by righties that automatically get censored.

Yeah, but this ain't Twitter!!

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

How is it that this guy keeps getting away with posting abominable statements such as this, while others sometimes fare a lot worse for a lot less?

This guy is way over the line.
If this place were a real bar, he would be

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Don't know what your babbling about; I don't have any gods.

Your false idol?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

How is it that this guy keeps getting away with posting abominable statements such as this, while others sometimes fare a lot worse for a lot less?

Dio you knows ant covid truthers here? And if there are some who recommend not wearing masks they are quite guilty of assassinating thousands.

[Tom]

Dio you knows ant covid truthers here?

Is that Russian?

And YOU call out SAMMY......pathetic old man.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Is that Russian?

And YOU call out SAMMY......pathetic old man.

No, I called out your master boxcar not Sammy. He calls the pandemic a "Scamdemic"
Recommending death sentences

We have been trading words more than usual.
One of us is leaving this board soon.

Hey, not to worry lighten up. Enjoy!

YouTube (Short URL)

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, I called out your master boxcar not Sammy. He calls the pandemic a "Scamdemic"
Recommending death sentences

We have been trading words more than usual.
One of us is leaving this board soon.

Hey, not to worry lighten up. Enjoy!

Once again, EINTSTEIN, you can't remember from day to day what you post here. You have no freaking clue what is going on. You posted this to Sammy about 8 hours ago.

One of us probably will be leaving soon - it will be YOU, because I doubt you enough mind left to be able to keep finding this website on your own much longer.

8 hours and you have no clue what you said this morning.....pathetic.

Sad.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Once again, EINTSTEIN, you can't remember from day to day what you post here. You have no freaking clue what is going on. You posted this to Sammy about 8 hours ago.

One of us probably will be leaving soon - it will be YOU, because I doubt you enough mind left to be able to keep finding this website on your own much longer.

8 hours and you have no clue what you said this morning.....pathetic.

Sad.

All I said to Sammy was to clarify his post in English.
Your cruel boxcar got the "assassinate covid truthers"

You embarrass yourself going after me.You chimp are not following
the simple progression. You are way more pathetic and scatterbrained than I am

[hcap]

More from The Lancet

Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...153-X/fulltext


Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems. In the absence of adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts, these countries have faced continuing restrictions.

This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.

The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. Protecting our economies is inextricably tied to controlling COVID-19. We must protect our workforce and avoid long-term uncertainty.

Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.

[hcap]

The Lancet paper I hust posted referenced this widespread consensus about the dangers of the latest unsupported theory of herd immunity.

And unlike the The Great Barrington Declaration’s unpublished list of so-called doctors, whomever they may be, ,MORE THAN 4,000 scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals have now signed the John Snow Memorandum as a alarmed reaction to the shoddy science of herd immunity as presented by The Great Barrington Declaration. All names get published as researchers sign up.

THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM
https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

...Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of healthcare systems to provide acute and routine care.

Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection(4) and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and healthcare workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID(3)

Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30% of the population in some regions(8)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The Lancet paper I hust posted referenced this widespread consensus about the dangers of the latest unsupported theory of herd immunity.

And unlike the The Great Barrington Declaration’s unpublished list of so-called doctors, whomever they may be, ,MORE THAN 4,000 scientists, researchers & healthcare professionals have now signed the John Snow Memorandum as a alarmed reaction to the shoddy science of herd immunity as presented by The Great Barrington Declaration. All names get published as researchers sign up.

THE JOHN SNOW MEMORANDUM
https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

...Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of healthcare systems to provide acute and routine care.

Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection(4) and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and healthcare workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID(3)

Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30% of the population in some regions(8)

So how do you know this group is not primarily comprised of quacks?

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So how do you know this group is not primarily comprised of quacks?

Wasn’t the Lancet forced to retract a paper earlier this year due to scientific fraud. I trust them.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Wasn’t the Lancet forced to retract a paper earlier this year due to scientific fraud. I trust them.

Yes, I believe it was. Just an inconvenient truth that Hcap conveniently overlooks.