After the Omicron surge. (Cause probably nearly everyone is either vax or infected or both by then….). Of course, that reduces the chances but doesn’t rule out future deadly surges. These public health policy should be made near real-time based on current data and so here we are thinking out to the future of mask mandate - it makes sense to remove them after Omicron based on the assumption that nearly everyone will have some protection (plus covid medicine will be more generally available and maybe even vax under 5 will also be available). And it makes sense to start them up again if a new surge begins. Yoingkin couldn’t wait a few weeks.
Many people have some concerns about the long-term side effects of covid vaccines (mRNA in particular). Some accept it as an acceptable risk (compared to the virus). Some judge it too risky for Children who are at a much lower risk of complications from the Virus. Please read below to get a better sense. @rocketsjudoka The Long-Term Safety Argument over COVID-19 Vaccines Concerns about long-term side effects have helped fuel vaccine hesitancy. An immunologist explains why we can be confident in vaccine safety. The truth is that we have overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people, with a small fraction of legitimate medical exemptions excluded. It is important to understand why—both for those who have already been immunized, and those who are still contemplating doing so. The argument turns not on blind trust in the system, but rather on our understanding of immunization at the mechanistic level, along with the huge quantity of available efficacy and safety information.
Is the 1980's all over again. Red scare and regulating objectionalbe Wow, Ryan Phillippe is seriously bloated.
So... what was the rest of the WP article from August that describes what they mean by "misleading"? ETA Here you go...
And how do you know this is true if the big 3 vaccine makers have not released their complete data to the public? Pfizer won’t release theirs until 2025. Moderna and AstraZeneca will be at the end of 2022. 3 of the vaccine companies have criminal and civil settlements. I trust nurse John Campbell over your fake MSM messaging any days of the week. Before any of you called him an anti vaxxer, he has had 3 jabs himself.
"Read the article?" Hahahahahahahahahaha If he did, he MAY have seen this: It is important to remember that these are only one driver of risk, Zaitchik wrote. “All evidence is that it has been a secondary driver up to this point in the pandemic. It might become more important as covid becomes endemic and settles into a seasonally locked pattern — which many expect that it will.”
this is going to go over big A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place- order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument. full study at the link
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-pandemic-why-is-nobody-celebrating/#comments Didn’t I tell you scared rabbits in here that the pandemic is coming to end sometimes next month? As for me, it ended on late 2020 when I got my hands on some horses dewormer. I know everyone’s docket is different, but at some point, you’ve got to say, enough is enough. Turn off that fake news MSM and go live your lives. Too many things to do and not enough times for them.
Boy do economic professors really love these highly processed and selective covid lockdown mortality studies while makings strong and definite scientific and political statements. lol I'll say this (because I'm a real person who will engage on the subject) I agree that lockdowns and restrictions at this stage of the pandemic, in western countries likely have negligible effects when 95% of the population has antibodies through high vaccination and prior infections. At this point, I agree we should stop the restrictions/mandates, we've all been exposed, we have high levels of immunity against severe disease, and omicron is way too contagious for half-ass restrictions. But that's for today and not for the entirety of the pandemic, and the statement lockdowns have had little to no public health effects can go stuff itself until New Zealand and Australia catch up in the total covid mortality rates department in comp to places like the US... and at that point, the argument would have to become the vaccines don't work at preventing death.
