Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report is not a political issue nor is anyone denying the amount of deaths. It is a report based on research from several sources showing the number of lives saved by mandatory lockdowns nowhere close to the predictions.

It appears the savings were not were the risks. Yes you can put down economic losses but it is businesses that employee people who need the benefit of those jobs:

It is saying it wasn’t 100’s of thousands of lives saved.

I'm ready for a non-political study, but this ain't it.

Explain how a meta analysis of study results is political?

Cherry-picking results, methodology and attempting to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. This is what ideological and disingenuous “think tanks” like this do.

Please go through the studies and tell me what is incorrect. Your bias is showing. You don't want to believe you were misled. Now prove you are right. I'm still waiting.

I already told you: I don’t indulge sealion trolls. Look that up if you don’t understand what it means (yeah, I get the irony of that statement).

The IEA is not a credible organization and any “research” it puts out, meta or not, is not credible by default. Full stop, the end, lovely parting gifts for you and all that.

Sit down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report is not a political issue nor is anyone denying the amount of deaths. It is a report based on research from several sources showing the number of lives saved by mandatory lockdowns nowhere close to the predictions.

It appears the savings were not were the risks. Yes you can put down economic losses but it is businesses that employee people who need the benefit of those jobs:

It is saying it wasn’t 100’s of thousands of lives saved.

I'm ready for a non-political study, but this ain't it.

Explain how a meta analysis of study results is political?

Cherry-picking results, methodology and attempting to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. This is what ideological and disingenuous “think tanks” like this do.

Please go through the studies and tell me what is incorrect. Your bias is showing. You don't want to believe you were misled. Now prove you are right. I'm still waiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

I went on my ski trip and had a wonderful time.

It's hard for lockdowns to work when people ignore them. You don't get to flout the rules and then complain that they were ineffective

There were no rules preventing people from traveling to ski in another state, if the ski resorts were open.

In any event, I ignored the rules as much as I could because I knew they didn't, and couldn't, work. They went against all prior pandemic planning.

that’s not entirely true. for a period of time, movement was restricted in a number of states. in DC you could have been fined or imprisoned for leaving your house to go skiing.

https://coronavirus.dc.gov/stayhome

NP but lol. I guess I should’ve been in jail. I sure enjoyed my trip (not a ski trip but a trip nonetheless) So dumb. Such a complete overreaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

We never had real lockdowns. Maybe I’d we did we’d have a different outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospitals were overrun and medical professionals were overworked and burning out. The lockdown prevented the collapse of the medical system. Perhaps the lockdown went longer than it needed to, but it was impossible to predict exactly how covid would evolve.

Right, I think a lot of people have forgotten the "flatten the curve" thing which was one major purpose of lockdowns. It wasn't just to prevent deaths from covid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

I went on my ski trip and had a wonderful time.

It's hard for lockdowns to work when people ignore them. You don't get to flout the rules and then complain that they were ineffective

There were no rules preventing people from traveling to ski in another state, if the ski resorts were open.

In any event, I ignored the rules as much as I could because I knew they didn't, and couldn't, work. They went against all prior pandemic planning.

that’s not entirely true. for a period of time, movement was restricted in a number of states. in DC you could have been fined or imprisoned for leaving your house to go skiing.

https://coronavirus.dc.gov/stayhome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

I went on my ski trip and had a wonderful time.

It's hard for lockdowns to work when people ignore them. You don't get to flout the rules and then complain that they were ineffective

There were no rules preventing people from traveling to ski in another state, if the ski resorts were open.

In any event, I ignored the rules as much as I could because I knew they didn't, and couldn't, work. They went against all prior pandemic planning.

that’s not entirely true. for a period of time, movement was restricted in a number of states. in DC you could have been fined or imprisoned for leaving your house to go skiing.

https://coronavirus.dc.gov/stayhome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

I went on my ski trip and had a wonderful time.

It's hard for lockdowns to work when people ignore them. You don't get to flout the rules and then complain that they were ineffective

There were no rules preventing people from traveling to ski in another state, if the ski resorts were open.

In any event, I ignored the rules as much as I could because I knew they didn't, and couldn't, work. They went against all prior pandemic planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

I went on my ski trip and had a wonderful time.

It's hard for lockdowns to work when people ignore them. You don't get to flout the rules and then complain that they were ineffective

There were no rules preventing people from traveling to ski in another state, if the ski resorts were open.

In any event, I ignored the rules as much as I could because I knew they didn't, and couldn't, work. They went against all prior pandemic planning.

Anonymous wrote:COVID = biggest scam in history. Pfauci should be locked up.

The majority of DCUM fell for this scam and wants to shove it under the rug.

No! These people need to pay for the damage they did.

None of the measures did a damn thing. We’d be at the same place we are today even if we did nothing. But keep telling yourself that the plexiglass at the grocery store checkout saved lives! Keep tellling yourself that wearing a mask to walk to your restaurant table only to take it off when sitting down saved lives. Keep telling yourself that people wearing homemade fabric masks stopped the spread. If you believe this stuff, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

IT DID NOTHING.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report is not a political issue nor is anyone denying the amount of deaths. It is a report based on research from several sources showing the number of lives saved by mandatory lockdowns nowhere close to the predictions.

It appears the savings were not were the risks. Yes you can put down economic losses but it is businesses that employee people who need the benefit of those jobs:

It is saying it wasn’t 100’s of thousands of lives saved.

I'm ready for a non-political study, but this ain't it.

Explain how a meta analysis of study results is political?

Cherry-picking results, methodology and attempting to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. This is what ideological and disingenuous “think tanks” like this do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP. Response was a disaster. But given the intolerant slant of this message board you will get a lot of hate.

Agree completely. I hope we can learn from this and allow more free discussion the next time something like this happens. There were plenty of reasonable individuals who questioned the lockdowns and disputed their effectiveness. Many of them were ignored, and many of them were censored. The censorship of opposing viewpoints should be terrifying to anyone who was paying attention.