People have shown their woeful inability to comprehend how many areas of life the maniacal responses to Covid have damaged or destroyed. We know roughly the damage Covid does. But our little brains struggle with the enormity of the costs of lockdowns.
No government produced a sensible cost-benefit analysis.
Even the private studies showing the costs are hundreds of times worse will, I think, be shown to be lacking. The costs are unfathomable.
And it is all for nought. There was never reason to believe lockdowns would help. The evidence is clear that they didn't.
So much unnecessary damage - mostly from the medical community failing to stand up and defend known, basic, truths like natural immunity. If they did, the mandate narrative would crumble.
Natural immunity made the vaccine roll out "complicated" for those making decisions, so they said take the shot or lose your job. They aren't even trying to hide that they don't care about you:
"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”"
And
"“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”"
If you're interested, I can send a short paper due to be published after the first of the year, so the copyright will belong to the Journal (it will be open access). The point of the paper is that the ability to detect nuance (my term) in faces develops over time. A specific part of the brain is responsible for face recognition. If the ability to see face details ("spacing" of details, in the literature) is blocked (as in congenital cataracts) during a developmentally sensitive period, that ability cannot be recaptured with later therapies. It's gone. Children have been looking at masks for two years. Have we impaired face recognition? Don't know, but if we have, what do we call a child who can't attend to or discriminate change in faces? Autistic? Asperger's syndrome? Just a scary thought on my part.
Thank you for coalescing all of this Justin. From the very first minute 'two weeks to flatten the curve' was announced I shuddered to think of the unintended (or intended?) consequences that were being loudly ignored. Our only hope at this point is that the mistakes are so glaringly obvious and severe that such a blunder will never be attempted in the future.
Our governments: "Never mind, move along, nothing to see here". "Shut up, put on your muzzle and comply".
People have shown their woeful inability to comprehend how many areas of life the maniacal responses to Covid have damaged or destroyed. We know roughly the damage Covid does. But our little brains struggle with the enormity of the costs of lockdowns.
No government produced a sensible cost-benefit analysis.
Even the private studies showing the costs are hundreds of times worse will, I think, be shown to be lacking. The costs are unfathomable.
And it is all for nought. There was never reason to believe lockdowns would help. The evidence is clear that they didn't.
I should do a series and try to interview people from all sorts of industries so they can give the details on how it has impacted them
That. Wld be powerful. The list is effectively endless. But robustly showing as many harms as possible is a worthwhile pursuit.
So much unnecessary damage - mostly from the medical community failing to stand up and defend known, basic, truths like natural immunity. If they did, the mandate narrative would crumble.
Natural immunity made the vaccine roll out "complicated" for those making decisions, so they said take the shot or lose your job. They aren't even trying to hide that they don't care about you:
"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”"
And
"“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”"
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
So crazy. Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that.
If you're interested, I can send a short paper due to be published after the first of the year, so the copyright will belong to the Journal (it will be open access). The point of the paper is that the ability to detect nuance (my term) in faces develops over time. A specific part of the brain is responsible for face recognition. If the ability to see face details ("spacing" of details, in the literature) is blocked (as in congenital cataracts) during a developmentally sensitive period, that ability cannot be recaptured with later therapies. It's gone. Children have been looking at masks for two years. Have we impaired face recognition? Don't know, but if we have, what do we call a child who can't attend to or discriminate change in faces? Autistic? Asperger's syndrome? Just a scary thought on my part.
Thank you for coalescing all of this Justin. From the very first minute 'two weeks to flatten the curve' was announced I shuddered to think of the unintended (or intended?) consequences that were being loudly ignored. Our only hope at this point is that the mistakes are so glaringly obvious and severe that such a blunder will never be attempted in the future.
Thanks for your comment. I have great hope.
Thank you so much for this. What a tremendous resource.
Unbelievable. “It’s about your health” has been blown out of the water.
Very helpful list. Thank you.