Not every place in the world was interested in slowing the spread of COVID
Yeah, fundamentally not true. You saw some predictions in 2020 and thought it was true. Lockdown kept business open, let you walk around unmasked, let children fo to school without killing their parents or teachers, kept the economy booming. You lived in a country that did nothing to actually lockdown. I lived in a country that did. Guess what happened with the parks?... they sure didnt get covered in sand. The kids could play and socialise, just as you want
But then, this comes down to the real problem. You are using one type of lockdown as a representation of all lockdowns. This is nonsense. It's like when you talk about RussiaGate. It's quite clear that you are talking about something else entirely than everyone else on this forum. Or the Main Stream Media. There is probably someone, somewhere who made the claims you made. So you this to pretend RussiaGate was a hoax. Your defintion of RussiaGate is not what everyone else thinks RussiaGate is
You pretend what lockdowns and get cranky when some points out that is does not mean what you think it means.
I would much prefer to have lockdowns that what Sweden did. That sounds obnoxiously intrusive
Absolutely not. They could track air conditioning currents in restaurants and prove how people got infected. They could prove that masks stopped most droplets. There were huge benefits to lockdowns over 'staying open'. I put it in quotation marks because staying open did not actually mean staying open
True. And kids still died.
I first caught COVID off a kid. I know I didn't catch it from anyone else because the only other adult around never got COVID and had to get tested daily to be allowed to work while I was sick
See, you are equating 'lower expression' with 0%. Which is moronic. It just means lower and definitely above 0. You can still catch COVID off kids and schools were a breeding ground. Many teachers and parents died.
But this is how you have treated COVID from day 1. Cloth masks remove 80& of droplets somehow means they don't work. The rate of deaths from Covid infection is less than flu infection, which somehow means that Covid is going to kill fewer people. Despite the fact that more people died to Covid by April 2020 than would die to flu for a whole year. Co-morbidities would double your chance of dying.... but the death rate went from about 1% to 2%. You have a setemce, strip all context from around the sentence, twist its meaning and say it agrees with you
This is laziness and there definitely are downsides. You can give them a childhood. It just won't look the same as outside of the pandemic. You, as a parent, just have to put effort in
You say all these things without realising YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE SITUATION. It's not static. You can change for the better
So you're saying there were not enough countries trying to stop the spread and if there were more, you would've have save at least one succeeding?
Literally happened...
You could see how people got infected in restaurants because you had real world results of that happening. There is no real world model showing masks slowing infections. I can just point to the UK and the models they used to show you how horrible covid predictive modeling was.
More kids die from the flu, the concern for that isn't nearly as high as covid. The concern for something should match the risk. This is the type of stuff kids had to endure because kids are the main population that you can actually control the most since they are minors. The article is from April 2023 and even at that point (3 YEARS LATER), kids couldn't talk during lunch, they had to wear masks outside. This is the epitome of anti-science.
A school in upstate New York imposed some of the most extreme measures during the pandemic—including silent lunches and outdoor masking. The rules are still in effect.
www.silentlunch.net
I literally said kids hardly spread covid (especially when compared to the flu), not that they have a 0% transfer rate. It's literally what you quoted...
Covid is not droplet-based transmission and we have studies showing cloth masks did nothing... Covid's death rate was never 1% or 2%, do you know how many more people would've died if that was true? Also, Rachel Maddow would've been fine with a 2% death rate. She literally says just do the things that protect yourself from a cold.
Covid doesn't spread outside, why would you stop kids from playing outside?
Fauci did get things wrong at the start. Then he changed his recommendation based on scientific research into COVID
It's strange to see someone getting offended at changing their mind when presented with new facts
He was right about masks as that is literally what the science said, they he changed his opinion based on ideology vs science. There was no mask science done in those couple weeks where he changed his mind.
Literally Fauci was wrong about like everything he said here. I knew he was wrong then without hindsight. It was super obvious covid was in the US and spreading but he said there was no community spread. He literally says and tells New York residents on February 29th that "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything you are doing on a day by day basis." I went to C2E2 in late February in 2020 and literally everyone there knew covid was there, we also knew it was gonna be like the last time we could do anything like that for awhile. Common sense told you that, but Dr. Fauci couldn't see that. Also, one of my doctors that you all say is incompetent, Marty Makary, said in January 2020 that we need to start doing things for covid but no one listened.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, joins Weekend TODAY to discuss the threat of coronavirus and the possibility of the disease’s “community spread.”
www.today.com
God forbid a democracy might value the readability of its public documents.
Huh? Times New Roman is essentially just a bold Calibri. Metal Gear Solid 2 literally predicted this nonsense.
"Doesn't last" and "doesn't happen at all" are very, very different things.
Common colds are very common. Its in the name.
I have already explained why the stat you requested is meaningless.
Horseshit. Many countries managed lockdowns without halting nutritional programs or immunisation drives. The poor decision of this handfull of east Asian countries doesn't reflect on the principle of lockdown whatsoever.
And you exaggerate the harm (such as negligible risks of mild myocarditis) while ignoring or dismissing the benefits (as above).
What?
Average amount of colds per year per person is 2-4...
Then don't claim meaningless things. I have data for my claim of vaccination rates lowering but you don't.
Those countries get aid from wealthy Western nations that stopped said aid because it wasn't "essential".
The benefits are extremely negligible even more so than the flu vaccine that isn't mandated...
