Discussion about this post

User's avatar
KaiKai's avatar

In a WSJ opinion piece “the fickle science of lockdowns” the authors’ make a case for how lockdowns were not recommended pre-covid and how they have not made a difference in the pandemic trajectory currently. So why are we ignoring the data on lockdowns and now what appears to be our Covid exit strategy: omicron? The final paragraph in the WSJ opinion piece says it all:

“So why did pub­lic-health au­thor­i­ties aban­don their op­po­si­tion to lock­downs? Why did they rush to embrace the untested claims of flawed epi­demi­o­log­i­cal mod­el­ing? One an­swer ap­pears in the Johns Hop­kins study from 2019: “Some NPIs, such as travel re­stric­tions and quar­an­tine, might be pur­sued for so­cial or po­lit­i­cal pur­poses by po­lit­i­cal lead­ers, rather than pur­sued be­cause of pub­lic health ev­i­dence.”

Expand full comment
GT's avatar

RE: "cases" in the US Northeast... how many of those "hospitalizations" are WITH Omicron as opposed to "FOR" Omicron?

First it started in South Africa, essentially them telling the rest of the world to R-E-L-A-X. Now it's Denmark. And did you see the interview yesterday where the interviewee (some public health minister) was trying to sell the panic before being forced to admit that there were only 10 people in UK hospitals with Omicron?

Make no mistake - these globalist sociopaths will not give back their power without a fight. We have to take it back.

Expand full comment
135 more comments...

No posts