MSNBC medical contributor tells Americans to start wearing masks again after uptick in COVID hospita

MuchAdo · Nov 21, 2023

AFM said: ↑

How many healthy children have died from Covid? Name some.

Children have died from the vaccines.

Viruses are transmitted via aerosol particles from breathing. Masks don't stop those. Therefore masks don't protect or prevent. Trust masks at your own and your own loved ones peril.
Click to expand...

How many children have died from vaccines? Name them.

More healthy children have died from covid than from having received the vaccination.

You obviously have no understanding how masks actually work. In fact, all your comments seem to be misinformation and when challenged to provide proof, you decline. That tells me you actually don’t have any information at all.

Wearing masks has been shown to be an effective measure in reducing the spread of respiratory droplets, which can contain viruses like the one causing COVID-19. Masks primarily serve to protect others from the wearer, especially in situations where social distancing may be challenging.

The effectiveness of masks can vary based on factors such as the type of mask, how well it fits, and adherence to proper usage. Masks, when combined with other preventive measures like vaccination, hand hygiene, and social distancing, contribute to a comprehensive strategy in controlling the transmission of respiratory infections.

LangleyMan · Nov 21, 2023

Bowerbird said: ↑

And I promised the mods I would not quote posts I have reported, which is fair enough as it does cause them more work
Click to expand...

There is that.

The collapsing white male middle class is lashing out. It's killing these guys they have to get along with women and minorities, people they used to push around with impunity. They damn near lost their minds over mask mandates. Imagine not being able to do what you want when you want to do it.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

In short, if the coronavirus had been a major killer in a country with hospitals that don’t hold a candle to U.S. hospitals, and in a country where smoking is at least visibly quite a bit more common, we would have known about it months before the lockdowns and shelter-in-place decrees began to wreck U.S. cities, counties, and states. Baier’s interview of Smith, along with the speed at which news travels, tells us there was fairly reliable information going back quite a while that this wasn’t the bubonic plague. Not even close.

It’s something to think about in consideration of the economic impact of the lockdowns. Patricia Cohen reported in the May 29, 2020, edition of the New York Times that “more than 40 million people—the equivalent of one out of every four workers—have filed for unemployment benefits since the coronavirus pandemic grabbed hold in mid-March.”7 In Cohen’s case, let’s first excuse her reportorial error of blaming the virus for the onset of the sick-inducing job loss, while also correcting it. What happened was that by mid-March, much of the U.S. was locked down or on the way to being locked down. With streets and businesses empty, and with other businesses increasingly shut down by decree, unemployment soared.

This is important simply because we knew by mid-March that the virus had in no way exhibited killer qualities of any kind. Think about it. Just as the old Soviet Union couldn’t keep the Chernobyl nuclear incident off the front pages of U.S. newspapers at a time when communications technology was much more primitive in comparison to today’s, there’s no way that the Chinese could have hidden mass death in Wuhan or elsewhere.

Which means that it was also well known by mid-March that some who contracted the virus experienced a lot of discomfort, some very little, and some seemingly none at all. But the main thing is that if it had been a major killer, the previous truth would have been a known quantity.

Which brings us to an early and fairly easy to make conclusion about the lockdowns that began in March, followed by layoffs that took off at a rate no American has realistically ever seen. Politicians will claim they had no choice, that the virus was an unknown, that “China” wasn’t forthcoming with the truth about it such that stateside politicians had to fly a little bit blind.

Let’s please not let their attempts to deflect the hotter light stand. The very technology that enables rapid-fire communication among readers, the very technology that enables long-lost and geographically distant friends to stage Zoom parties amid the errant lockdowns, is the same technology that would have alerted us to a killer long before mid-March.

Politicians panicked. Plain and simple. And in doing so their panic led to exponentially more unemployment and long-term agony than would have been the case had they simply suggested to us adults that we might profit from being careful.

In short, let’s not let the political class hide behind an information deficit, “China,” reasonable fear of a new virus, or all three. At the same time, the certainty that a truly killer virus would have long been known by mid-March wouldn’t excuse limited action any more than it would excessive action. The simple truth is that any government force is excessive in response to something said to cause illness and, in some instances, death. It will be said throughout this book, but people don’t need a law.
Click to expand...

Tamny, John. When Politicians Panicked: The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of Reason (pp. 17-19). Post Hill Press. Kindle Edition.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

Two Pandemics

Year 1: COVID

Year 2: Vaccines

Recall when President Biden proclaimed “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Turns out he was exactly, precisely, literally 100% wrong. Politicians love catchphrases; in this case the accurate one would be “Pandemic of the Vaccinated.” Europe and America currently have a second pandemic far worse than the first, because its numbers are worse, and also because its victims are healthy young people who would not otherwise have died.

The next chart shows excess death rates for young working people in eight European countries, focusing first on the period during which mass vaccination commenced, and then the same 3-month period a year later, after millions more were vaccinated and boosted. The year-over-year comparisons show that all these countries experienced more than their usual death rates after mass vaccination commenced. And seven of the eight countries experienced substantial jumps in excess deaths; as vaccination continued and increased, their rate of excess deaths also trended upward.

Given that COVID is now less virulent than it was at the start of vaccination, all countries’ death rates should be trending back towards zero excess death. Also, vaccination rates are now much higher than in 2021, so if “safe and effective” is true, death rates should be plummeting, not increasing. But they continue to rise. Again (and again), logic and deductive reasoning indicate that mass vaccination is the often-deadly culprit for some otherwise healthy people in the prime of their lives.
Click to expand...

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (p. 235). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

In late April 2020, the reported death rate for the coronavirus was about 6 percent—about sixty thousand deaths had been reported out of one million cases.29

In other words, based on PCR test results, six out of one hundred people who were infected with the virus were supposed to be dying. That figure was terrifying, even higher than the Spanish flu.

But it didn’t represent the real death rate. It wasn’t close. The twenty-to-one ratio of antibody tests to PCR positives suggested that the real mortality rate was one twentieth as high as that 6 percent figure. In other words, 6 percent divided by twenty—or 0.3 percent.

If the ratio was twenty-five to one, the real risk was roughly 0.24 percent.

That figure equaled not six deaths out of every one hundred infections, but one death out of every three to four hundred infections. At that rate, the coronavirus was far less dangerous than the earliest estimates had suggested, and significantly less dangerous than the 1 percent figure that journalists used as shorthand. It was perhaps three to four times as deadly as an average flu strain.

But the flu was relatively more dangerous to children and teens than Sars-Cov-2. A paper in The Lancet would later suggest that in big Western European countries, about one in one million teenagers had died of the coronavirus through February 2021, the entire first year of the epidemic.30.

A separate paper in the British Medical Journal on children and teenagers who had been hospitalized for the coronavirus found that they made up only about 1 percent of all patients in Britain through May 2020. Six children died, the authors reported. All six were profoundly ill with conditions unrelated to Covid.31

Most of us, if pressed, would admit that although all deaths are terrible, not all are equally tragic. The death of a child with her whole life ahead of her hurts more than the death of an eighty-five-year-old who has already led a full life.

Economists and epidemiologists have a way to quantify this idea: “life-years lost.” They measure “life-years lost” by figuring out how many years the average person had left to live when he died of a certain disease. Then they multiply that figure by the number of overall deaths.

Traffic accidents and drug overdoses and AIDS, which kill mostly younger people, account for a disproportionate number of life-years lost. COVID ranks on the opposite end of the scale, because it kills the old and infirm far more than anyone else. In the United States in 2020, life-years lost to overdoses were likely significantly higher than those lost to Covid.

But to say that truth aloud, or even hint at it, was to risk being called callous, a grandma-killer. The author of one bizarre piece published in The Atlantic in September 2020 appeared to be shocked by this finding: “Globally, people don’t value elderly lives as much as they do young people’s, research shows. When it comes to deciding who lives or dies, there’s a disregard for the elderly, even among the elderly.”32

How could this research surprise anyone? If the question were posed the other way—Should the young be sacrificed to benefit the old?—the answer would clearly be no. Yet our inability to discuss the risks of Covid honestly and explicitly meant that we were making that choice day after day, as the lockdowns stretched on.
Click to expand...

Berenson, Alex. Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives (pp. 148-149). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

UntilNextTime · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

Oh, I see--you lost on the substance, so you claim I'm ranting.

The thread is about wearing masks, perhaps even mask mandates, not about their efficacy.

Yes, and your anti-mask crusade (I especially like your twenty overlapping claims you copied from somewhere) belongs in another thread.
Click to expand...

Say if this is a thread about playing on a freeway(wearing a mask), isn't it obvious that you'd discuss the dangers (how the fact that playing on a freeway is not good for your health)? In this case the health risks of wearing a mask for prolonged periods, but then again, some just can't seem to make that connection.
BTW, I'm still waiting.

Betamax101 · Nov 21, 2023

AFM said: ↑

Children have died from the vaccines.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Viruses are transmitted via aerosol particles from breathing.
Click to expand...

Exhaling and inhaling.

Masks don't stop those.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. I think somewhere along the line your information input missed the actual science involved. Do you think, as a crude example, that every 9mm bullet goes through a thick steel grating that has 12mm holes?
The attractive forces of the fabric, the random directional nature of the droplets, accumulative debris. The effectiveness will never be zero and when you combine the host wearing one with potential recipient also wearing one, the effect is increased. A 50% effectiveness from 1 wearer becomes a 75% with two.

Therefore masks don't protect or prevent.
Click to expand...

That is called circular reasoning. Your "therefore" was based on a false conclusion.

Trust masks at your own and your own loved ones peril.
Click to expand...

No. Trusting the noise from people spreading batshit is the real peril.

joyce martino · Nov 21, 2023

I was forced to Mask up two times both at doc's visits, in 2020 and 2021.....Then they went in the trashcan...

And never owned a bottle of sanitizer stuff....

LangleyMan · Nov 21, 2023

AFM said: ↑

How could this research surprise anyone? If the question were posed the other way—Should the young be sacrificed to benefit the old?—the answer would clearly be no. Yet our inability to discuss the risks of Covid honestly and explicitly meant that we were making that choice day after day, as the lockdowns stretched on.

Tamny, John. When Politicians Panicked: The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of Reason (pp. 17-19). Post Hill Press. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...

Your MAGA propaganda misses the real reason pols shut down "places with faces" in early 2020--fear hospitals would be overrun with covid patients. It had nothing to do with "sacrificing the young for the old."

Businesses like restaurants, theaters, malls, bars, travel, experienced slower sales as peopled stayed away in large numbers even when they were open.

Suggest you research what real economists say about where we went wrong.

UntilNextTime · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

You're asking someone else if they're "still figuring it out?"
Click to expand...

Are you?

LangleyMan · Nov 21, 2023

UntilNextTime said: ↑

Say if this is a thread about playing on a freeway (wearing a mask), isn't it obvious that you'd discuss the dangers (how the fact that playing on a freeway is not good for your health)? In this case the health risks of wearing a mask for prolonged periods, but then again, some just can't seem to make that connection.
BTW, I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

How about respirators (3M™ Particulate Respirator, 8233, N100) that stop 99.97% of the virus particles? Are you going to say they don't protect people who wear them properly?

joyce martino · Nov 21, 2023

The rush to all the respirators MOST LIKELY caused many more deaths.....

You trust the government???? Lies Lies Lies from all of them.

UntilNextTime · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

How about respirators (3M™ Particulate Respirator, 8233, N100) that stop 99.97% of the virus particles? Are you going to say they don't protect people who wear them properly?
Click to expand...

THE HEALTH RISKS OF PROLONGED FACE-MASKS WEARING & RESPIRATORS
The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses
Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19
Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Conclusion
Our view is that the weight of the scientific evidence to date indicates that particulate respirators offer no advantage over medical masks as a component of PPE for the prevention of respiratory viral infections transmitted by the droplet/contact route, when used for routine care in clinical settings. To date, the available evidence supports that the predominant route of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with the droplet/contact route. There are potential unintended consequences of the use of particulate respirators that put HCWs at risk particularly with prolonged use, which have not been associated with the use of medical masks. HCWs should be apprised accordingly in an open and transparent manner regarding potential harms of particulate respirators in jurisdictions where particulate respirators are chosen for routine use as a component of PPE. In addition, particulate respirators are more costly, require fit testing, necessitate additional time and resources, do not provide an adequate fit in individuals with beards, and may provide a false sense of security. Moreover, in the current COVID-19 pandemic, shortages have been documented from overuse such that respirators were not available in settings where AGMPs are performed and where is evidence for their need. Regardless of whether jurisdictions choose the precautionary principle with consequent use of particulate respirators instead of medical masks as a component of PPE for routine care of COVID-19 patients, this choice must not detract from the critical importance of emphasizing that PPE is only one measure within a bundle that comprises administrative, environmental and engineering controls, as described in WHO’s infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care [2].

PPE used by HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19 must be used with attention to detail and precision of execution which involves selecting the proper PPE and being trained in how to correctly don, doff and dispose of it – without self-contaminating oneself in the process, the latter underscoring the importance and attention required for hand hygiene. Additional evidence on the use of medical masks and respirators needs to be generated to help define and inform knowledge gaps as we learn more about the COVID-19 epidemic and HCW practices.
Click to expand...

You can tell me after you've read these studies. I already know.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

From a study of VAERS commissioned by the U.S. Government: Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of problem drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed...fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Confirm: https://delivr.com/2s725

Even with these reporting deficits, there have been more adverse reactions and deaths reported to VAERS for the COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined, over 32 years.

Thousands of deaths have occurred the day of Covid vaccination, or within one or two days.
Click to expand...

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (p. 131-132). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

Denmark provided us with a valuable case study, but it’s hardly the only European country with an excess death problem. Recent analysis of Austria, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and France all reveal their excess deaths occurring in the same two phases: 1. The COVID Pandemic 2. Mass vaccination

After mass vaccination, death rates of working-age people increased in every one of these countries. I challenge anyone to find a virologist who’d suggest that a virus would switch to targeting the younger healthier population in the second year of a pandemic. (Clearly, the Danish Government didn’t think so when they ended mass vaccination for everyone under 50.)

Looking at this next chart, it is undeniable that something happened to increase deaths in 2021 and 2022, something new, something that wasn’t an influencing factor in 2020. As people search to explain the spike in deaths, particularly people unwilling to imagine or even contemplate that mass administration of a brand new pharmaceutical product could be the culprit, the typical explanations proposed include drug overdoses, suicides, delayed diagnosis of other diseases, and missed screenings of rapidly-fatal cancers. These ideas, whether alone or in combination, have not been borne out to explain the sad excess mortality. In any event, these ideas cannot explain the glaring temporal reality: In Summer and Fall 2021, using America as an example, there was an 84% spike in excess deaths among the youngest working people (25 - 44), and that spike immediately followed the massive vaccine mandate.

For deaths to spike in any or all of the proposed categories within that exact same time period for any reason other than mass vaccination is statistically impossible. We know that hundreds of millions of doses were administered, and there is no other factor that affected nearly all working-age people simultaneously.

\Next, again using the US as an example, the SOA report shows that the healthiest population (working age Americans) experienced an excess death rate 8% higher than the general US population. And note that the general population is far less healthy than working Americans. Since the intellectually lazy reasons proposed (suicide, delayed medical care, etc) cannot be responsible for these eye-popping increases all happening at the same time, there is an urgent question being ignored every day by public health officials: What is causing this new and tragic loss of life among young working-age people?
Click to expand...

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (pp. 232-234). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

There is a very high standard to declare a vaccine safe. This standard is higher for a vaccine than for a medication. (A Burrell, 2022)[6] This is derived from the first principle of medicine “First, do no harm.” The physician assesses the patient, renders a diagnosis, and then prescribes a medication. In the decision to prescribe a medication, the physician must balance the good of the medication against the harm of the medication against the disease of the individual. Several situations demonstrate the issue. A patient is suffering from cancer. The use of a chemotherapeutic agent may save the patient’s life but also may have serious and life-threatening side effects. A common dilemma for a physician is the patient suffering from a cold who demands an antibiotic. The physician knows the cold is due to a virus and will not respond to the antibiotic and so will not prescribe it for the cold. But he/she may reason that a cold often leads to a bacterial infection and an antibiotic will prevent that and so prescribes the antibiotic. If a healthy patient comes to a physician requesting a medication, but in which the physician cannot find reasonable grounds to prescribe the medication, the physician is obligated not to give that patient medication as it violates the first principle. The reason is obvious. Every medication has a potential negative side effect. If the patient is healthy, and any medication is given, there is the potential to do harm. In the case of a vaccine the situation is fundamentally different. The patient is healthy and there is a desire to prevent disease. But the vaccine itself may have undesirable side effects. Any harm to the patient is now weighed against the good to society. If the vaccination is for a terrible plague such as smallpox or polio the answer is clear: Everyone is at risk. The diseases are devastating to everyone and the side effects minimal. Not giving the vaccine is harmful and so the first principle is violated. As such, the vaccination is offered to healthy people. In the case of COVID-19, this standard is not reached. The disease is only harmful to a small segment of the population and that harm must be weighed against the potential of harm of a vaccine to a much larger segment of the population not at risk. The question now presents itself: is there sufficient evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is essentially harmless to the general population? The answer presents itself as it is summed up in the idiom, “the facts speak for themselves”. The demand of vaccine manufacturers against legal liability of their vaccines indicate that the manufacturers do not consider the vaccines safe. The need for Pfizer to hire 2400 full-time employees to evaluate adverse effects from the vaccine speaks for itself. The action by public medical officials to impeach the VAERS reporting system speaks for itself. The only valid conclusion: The Pfizer vaccine is not safe.
Click to expand...

Investigation Team, Pfizer Documents; Kelly, Amy. War Room / DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook: Find Out What Pfizer, FDA Tried to Conceal (pp. 74-76). Kindle Edition.

During the vaccine rollout in early 2021, cases of myo-pericarditis (inflammation of the heart lining and muscle) were reported to Pfizer, and one month before the EUA for teens was granted (May 2021), a peer-reviewed study showed that 35 teenagers had suffered myocarditis after their Pfizer vaccines. In August 2021, after millions of teens had received the vaccine, FDA, CDC, and Pfizer issued the warning about myocarditis risk in teens
Click to expand...

.

Investigation Team, Pfizer Documents; Kelly, Amy. War Room / DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook: Find Out What Pfizer, FDA Tried to Conceal (pp. 12-13). Kindle Edition.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

The theory is essentially as follows: infected people exhale the virus in both droplets and aerosols, large and small particles. A mask, even a cloth mask, can catch droplets and thus reduce the total amount of virus a person is exhaling. Plus, because large particles tend to fall to the ground quickly, masks are even more important when two people are close together. The reason is in that case the mask might provide some protection to the wearer, too – because it will catch droplets that the person would otherwise inhale before they hit the ground. Intuitively, the idea makes sense.

But the details are crucial. For example, if most particles people exhale are very small, catching larger particles may not matter much. Measuring the exact size of the particles in people’s breath is technically challenging. But in 2009 researchers did so. What they found is not good for mask advocates.

The vast majority of particles in exhaled breath are tiny, smaller than a micron. In the paper, called “Size distribution and sites of origin of droplets expelled from the human respiratory tract during expiratory activities,” the researchers reported: The majority of droplets from human expiratory activities are very small, being in low micrometer and high sub-micrometer ranges. Where Papineni and Rosenthal [an earlier study] found that 80–90% of droplets were smaller than 1 μm [micron], the current study agrees, showing that these smallest particles are located within an aerosol mode, centered in the range 0.1–1 μm.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850208002036)

In basic terms, masks have almost no chance of catching most of the particles we exhale. Of course, if larger droplets happen to hold most Sars-Cov-2 virions, then maybe masks can help even if they don’t do much good against smaller particles. For many years, scientists believed large droplets did hold most viral particles – in part because they simply have much more room. Imagine a marble in a box – if the box is a foot on each side, it can hold the marble easily, but if it is only an inch, the marble will have to drop in perfectly.

But just as researchers can now determine the size of the particles that people exhale, they now know which particles hold virions. Again, the answer is not good for the source control theory.

In a remarkable paper published in the September 2020 issue of The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, Dr. Kevin P. Fennelly – a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute – debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for most viral transmission. Fennelly wrote: Current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are transmitted by large respiratory droplets—ie, larger than 5 µm [microns] — produced by coughing and sneezing...

Unfortunately, that premise is wrong, Fennelly explained. Studies “that included methods to measure particle sizes have consistently found pathogens in small particles (i.e. under 5 microns).” A study of influenza patients found about two-thirds of all the virus was contained in particles under 4 microns. Other researchers found that particles under 5 microns contained 9 times as much flu virus as larger particles. (That paper did show surgical masks cut the amount of virus found in smaller particles – a point for “my mask protects you” – but by far less than they reduced the virus in larger particles.)

“There is no evidence that some pathogens are carried only in large droplets,” Fennelly wrote. Even the fact that risk rose when people were close together didn’t provide much evidence for the droplet theory. Small particles also had a higher risk of infecting people at short distances.
Click to expand...

Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (pp. 4-6). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

In a paper published on Nov. 18, Danish researchers reported on a trial that covered almost 5,000 people in Denmark in the spring. The trial was carefully designed and executed, with half the participants told to wear high-quality surgical masks and provided 50 for free. The other half were not asked to wear masks.

Participants were followed for a month to see if they had been infected with Sars-Cov-2. Within the month, 53 people in the maskless group had been infected, compared to 42 who wore masks. The difference was indistinguishable from chance, and suggested masks might really cause anywhere from a 46 percent decrease to a 23 percent increase in infections among their wearers.

The reason for the failure was not that people in the masked group didn’t follow the rules, either. When they looked at only at participants who always wore masks, the researchers found an even smaller difference.

Mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2 infection,” the authors wrote in their discussion. Unless future large randomized controlled trials find different results, the Danish mask study essentially should end the debate if surgical masks protect people who wear them outside hospitals.

As physicians and infectious disease professionals largely agreed until April, the answer is that they don’t. Anyone who says otherwise, for whatever reason, is being untruthful – and as of Nov. 10, that group, unfortunately, includes the Centers for Disease Control.
Click to expand...

Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 2). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

Your MAGA propaganda misses the real reason pols shut down "places with faces" in early 2020--fear hospitals would be overrun with covid patients. It had nothing to do with "sacrificing the young for the old."

Businesses like restaurants, theaters, malls, bars, travel, experienced slower sales as peopled stayed away in large numbers even when they were open.

Suggest you research what real economists say about where we went wrong.
Click to expand...

And that never happened. The hospital facility set up in the Javits Center in New York, the field hospitals in Central Park, and the hospital ship in New York harbor were essentially empty.

We clearly know what went wrong - politicians panicked. They didn't know what to do because they didn't take the time to understand the disease and the data on it, had to do something for political and reelection reasons, and shut everything down. The economic costs, supply chain issues, and educational damage (which is the real tragedy IMO) is still being felt.

UntilNextTime · Nov 21, 2023

@LangleyMan
Hint; if you want to build a solid argument, make sure that you know what information is out there that can and will deflate yours. As I've just demonstrated in post #363.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

MuchAdo said: ↑

How many children have died from vaccines? Name them.

More healthy children have died from covid than from having received the vaccination.

You obviously have no understanding how masks actually work. In fact, all your comments seem to be misinformation and when challenged to provide proof, you decline. That tells me you actually don’t have any information at all.

Wearing masks has been shown to be an effective measure in reducing the spread of respiratory droplets, which can contain viruses like the one causing COVID-19. Masks primarily serve to protect others from the wearer, especially in situations where social distancing may be challenging.

The effectiveness of masks can vary based on factors such as the type of mask, how well it fits, and adherence to proper usage. Masks, when combined with other preventive measures like vaccination, hand hygiene, and social distancing, contribute to a comprehensive strategy in controlling the transmission of respiratory infections.
Click to expand...

See my post above. They don't release names.

And all you want to know about masks is documented in the books that I have referenced and posted quotes from above.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

Bowerbird said: ↑

Majority but that means in the strictest sense any number more than 50%. In this case the report is NOT a research article and is from early in the pandemic
View attachment 229949

There was considerable under calculation of COVID deaths https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00011-9/fulltext

And just because you have a co morbidity does not mean you will curl your toes in the next few weeks. Many people with co morbidities can live decades post diagnosis
Click to expand...

Undercalculation? That's ridiculous. The figures quoted in the article come from the CDC. The percentages did not change throughout the course of the Covid panic.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

Bowerbird said: ↑

More than 2 years old - want to try again and this time with actual research
Click to expand...

That is actual research.

LangleyMan · Nov 21, 2023

AFM said: ↑

Dowd, Ed. "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) (p. 235). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence the excess deaths are caused by the mRNA vaccines?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

There is plenty of evidence vaccination doesn't cause the excess deaths. Canada has a higher vaccination rate and fewer excess deaths.

"Overall, Dowd’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for excess mortality doesn’t hold up when viewed alongside other pieces of information. His claim exhibits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—that because the spikes followed vaccine boosters and mandates, that must mean that the vaccines are responsible for the spikes. Dowd’s assertion that COVID-19 vaccines are the sole explanation for excess deaths is based on no evidence at all and ignores evidence showing otherwise. The clinical trials observed no unusual spike in mortality among vaccinated people and the data points to unvaccinated groups being experiencing a higher mortality rate compared to vaccinated groups."

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-covid-19-vaccines-dont-increase-risk-death-contrary-claim-financier-edward-dowd/

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

Do you have any evidence the excess deaths are caused by the mRNA vaccines?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

There is plenty of evidence vaccination doesn't cause the excess deaths. Canada has a higher vaccination rate and fewer excess deaths.

"Overall, Dowd’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for excess mortality doesn’t hold up when viewed alongside other pieces of information. His claim exhibits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—that because the spikes followed vaccine boosters and mandates, that must mean that the vaccines are responsible for the spikes. Dowd’s assertion that COVID-19 vaccines are the sole explanation for excess deaths is based on no evidence at all and ignores evidence showing otherwise. The clinical trials observed no unusual spike in mortality among vaccinated people and the data points to unvaccinated groups being experiencing a higher mortality rate compared to vaccinated groups."

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-covid-19-vaccines-dont-increase-risk-death-contrary-claim-financier-edward-dowd/
Click to expand...

Read the book. There is plenty of evidence. The insurance companies certainly took notice.

LangleyMan · Nov 21, 2023

AFM said: ↑

Undercalculation? That's ridiculous. The figures quoted in the article come from the CDC. The percentages did not change throughout the course of the Covid panic.
Click to expand...

There are any number of studies that hold covid deaths are underreported.

AFM · Nov 21, 2023

LangleyMan said: ↑

There are any number of studies that hold covid deaths are underreported.
Click to expand...

Based on what?? Computer models?? That's ridiculous.

Log in or Sign up

MSNBC medical contributor tells Americans to start wearing masks again after uptick in COVID hospita

MuchAdo Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

Betamax101 Banned

joyce martino Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

joyce martino Well-Known Member

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

MSNBC medical contributor tells Americans to start wearing masks again after uptick in COVID hospita

MuchAdo Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

Betamax101 Banned

joyce martino Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

joyce martino Well-Known Member

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

UntilNextTime Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

LangleyMan Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches