Osodecentx said:

---

God loves stupid people because He made so many

---

And He also loves those who don't buy into narrative!

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

God loves stupid people because He made so many

---

And He also loves those who don't buy into narrative!

---

Yes, he does!

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

Osodecentx said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

---

My wife's brother was case #2 in California (a southwest chief pilot), in the same icu as case #1. It was at that point she decided that she would become educated beyond "take tylenol until you can't breathe then go to the hospital". I have personally treated around 100 for covid and long-covid as it isn't in my specialtyand am happy to help. She has treated several thousand over the last three years as it is in her specialty. I have been a witness. The Christmas cards thanking her for saving lives are overwhelming. You don't have to believe me. But I have to state what I've seen.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Anti-vaxxers scoffed when the models predicted a million deaths. You have no standing to critique models at this point.

---

2.2 million deaths by 2021 if we didn't do multiple mitigation efforts not involving vaccines. So yeah, they were pretty bad. Even the Lancet admitted they were off by a million/50-60% in the US and UK.

---

Again, that was assuming no vaccine and no mandatory or voluntary behavior changes at all…which the model made clear was unlikely.

---

And there wasn't a vaccine (widespread) during their window and mitigation was modest at best, yet they predicted nearly 5x the deaths. In other words, a bad model.

---

The window was changeable based on the level of mitigation. With none whatsoever, the pandemic was expected to peak within a few months and subside quickly. The more likely scenario was a longer window with fewer (albeit substantial) deaths, i.e. the whole point of flattening the curve.

---

The assumptions were wrong, thus the model turned out to be very wrong.

---

They predicted about a million deaths, assuming short term mitigation, and we got almost exactly that. In my world that's not very wrong.

---

Except we did long term mitigation and did worse than they predicted. Much. It's a bad model going back to their predictive R factors. This discussion was had over a year or maybe two ago. You can't seem to contemplate that mitigation had very little impact, but they scared us into absurd measures by these over the top death outcome models if we did nothing

---

Mitigation was inconsistent. I don't know how you calculate that one million is much worse than one million. I believe their R0 estimates were in the range of 1.5 to 3.5, which is typical.

---

Every time we get here. You don't even have the courtesy to read the study. You pump an article intended to justify the model, whose primary point was to say, "even though this isn't a great model, it motivated governments into action". Good grief. Read a chart or even the study at least. Deaths were projected to be 10% or less of the worst scenario with the same mitigation/suppression efforts they modeled, and we actually did. The 50% reduction related to only isolating/quarantining the infected and elderly.

And the R factor was 2-2.6, which you'd have seen in the study.

---

I've read (and explained) the report plenty of times. I don't know where you got the idea that we adopted their best-case suppression measures, but we weren't even close. They were talking about literal quarantines for the duration of the pandemic.

---

No they weren't "literal quarantines" except for the infected. It was social distancing and contact reductions, which we did. That includes multiple stay at home orders. It was school and university closures. Which we did. And it was more focused contact reduction for the elderly, which we did. And of course the quarantine/isolation for the infected and symptomatic was there all along. And they even factored in a compliance ratio, which didn't mean it needed 100% adherence. They knew it wouldn't be perfectly adhered to.

If you want literal, we literally implemented every recommendation they suggested varying by state and local government for the period they were in place. But everyone was in sync for the first few months, which their study recommended up to 4, and then we went back and forth on the triggers to start measures such as school closures again. Social distancing and quarantines for the infected remained.

Masking was not part of their evaluation, but it was a real world additional mitigation effort that should have helped improve the numbers of their model but did not.

That is certainly an interesting rewrite of both the study and recent history. Your narrative evolves almost as rapidly as the virus itself.

The government and media have done their best to resurrect Covid hysteria these last few weeks. Americans have pretty much said "here's your sign!" (Middle finger)

Just love all of the warm and fuzzy Covid booster ads on TV. Our tax dollars at work.

Sam Lowry said:

---

That is certainly an interesting rewrite of both the study and recent history. Your narrative evolves almost as rapidly as the virus itself.

---

Directly from the study.

Understand that those are suspect cases, which the UK and most other countries define by clinical factors. In other words, with or without a lab test, if you have symptoms then you and your whole family are largely confined at home. How many families do you know that were doing this a year into the pandemic, much less after 18-24 months? With social distancing of the entire population, you would have been similarly confined without a lab test or symptoms. As for schools, how many were actually closed for the 2020-21 school year? By that time there were more states with orders for schools to remain open than with orders to remain closed. The majority had no policy at all.

You might argue that none of this was relevant after the vaccine came out. But it took time to build enough supply to make the vaccine generally available, not to mention the challenge of getting people to take it. Nor was there any way to predict the nature of the Delta variant or how it would respond to the vaccine. These aren't flaws in the study design. They're the inherent limitations of working with a model early in the pandemic. The authors are careful to emphasize that they have limited data and can't precisely measure the effectiveness of interventions that were never tried on such a scale. What they could do, which was extremely useful, was give a reasonable idea of the severity of the threat and the feasibility of various responses. And let's be honest--even their most optimistic projections were ridiculed. Was that understandable in March 2020? Maybe. There's a lot less excuse with three more years of data staring you in the face.

Which brings us to the present reality. Just as we now know that the virus was indeed a serious threat, most rational people also know that the vaccine saved a lot of lives. Of course anything is up for debate if you have data showing otherwise. Glib dismissal of the science doesn't cut it any more. Y'all were way too wrong for way too long a time, and most of you still don't see it.

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

---

My wife's brother was case #2 in California (a southwest chief pilot), in the same icu as case #1. It was at that point she decided that she would become educated beyond "take tylenol until you can't breathe then go to the hospital". I have personally treated around 100 for covid and long-covid as it isn't in my specialtyand am happy to help. She has treated several thousand over the last three years as it is in her specialty. I have been a witness. The Christmas cards thanking her for saving lives are overwhelming. You don't have to believe me. But I have to state what I've seen.

---

Regardless of the extent of your experience, you still need a control to compare it against in order to come to any conclusion about treatment effectiveness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Understand that those are suspect cases, which the UK and most other countries define by clinical factors. In other words, with or without a lab test, if you have symptoms then you and your whole family are largely confined at home. How many families do you know that were doing this a year into the pandemic, much less after 18-24 months? With social distancing of the entire population, you would have been similarly confined without a lab test or symptoms. As for schools, how many were actually closed for the 2020-21 school year? By that time there were more states with orders for schools to remain open than with orders to remain closed. The majority had no policy at all.

You might argue that none of this was relevant after the vaccine came out. But it took time to build enough supply to make the vaccine generally available, not to mention the challenge of getting people to take it. Nor was there any way to predict the nature of the Delta variant or how it would respond to the vaccine. These aren't flaws in the study design. They're the inherent limitations of working with a model early in the pandemic. The authors are careful to emphasize that they have limited data and can't precisely measure the effectiveness of interventions that were never tried on such a scale. What they could do, which was extremely useful, was give a reasonable idea of the severity of the threat and the feasibility of various responses. And let's be honest--even their most optimistic projections were ridiculed. Was that understandable in March 2020? Maybe. There's a lot less excuse with three more years of data staring you in the face.

Which brings us to the present reality. Just as we now know that the virus was indeed a serious threat, most rational people also know that the vaccine saved a lot of lives. Of course anything is up for debate if you have data showing otherwise. Glib dismissal of the science doesn't cut it any more. Y'all were way too wrong for way too long a time, and most of you still don't see it.

---

Why lie Sam? When you're shown to be wrong you make things up to try and appear right. For one point, the vast majority of students in the US were still not back to classroom teaching a full year after the pandemic started. So you are way off on that. In fact only 4 states had mandates requiring school districts to offer in person learning to start the 2020-2021 school year.

Great Britain, who more aggressively than the US enforced the recommendations, still under performed the model significantly.

You are simply wrong on so much in the face of actual data it's difficult to even have a rational discussion.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Understand that those are suspect cases, which the UK and most other countries define by clinical factors. In other words, with or without a lab test, if you have symptoms then you and your whole family are largely confined at home. How many families do you know that were doing this a year into the pandemic, much less after 18-24 months? With social distancing of the entire population, you would have been similarly confined without a lab test or symptoms. As for schools, how many were actually closed for the 2020-21 school year? By that time there were more states with orders for schools to remain open than with orders to remain closed. The majority had no policy at all.

You might argue that none of this was relevant after the vaccine came out. But it took time to build enough supply to make the vaccine generally available, not to mention the challenge of getting people to take it. Nor was there any way to predict the nature of the Delta variant or how it would respond to the vaccine. These aren't flaws in the study design. They're the inherent limitations of working with a model early in the pandemic. The authors are careful to emphasize that they have limited data and can't precisely measure the effectiveness of interventions that were never tried on such a scale. What they could do, which was extremely useful, was give a reasonable idea of the severity of the threat and the feasibility of various responses. And let's be honest--even their most optimistic projections were ridiculed. Was that understandable in March 2020? Maybe. There's a lot less excuse with three more years of data staring you in the face.

Which brings us to the present reality. Just as we now know that the virus was indeed a serious threat, most rational people also know that the vaccine saved a lot of lives. Of course anything is up for debate if you have data showing otherwise. Glib dismissal of the science doesn't cut it any more. Y'all were way too wrong for way too long a time, and most of you still don't see it.

---

Why lie Sam? When you're shown to be wrong you make things up to try and appear right. For one point, the vast majority of students in the US were still not back to classroom teaching a full year after the pandemic started. So you are way off on that. In fact only 4 states had mandates requiring school districts to offer in person learning to start the 2020-2021 school year.

Great Britain, who more aggressively than the US enforced the recommendations, still under performed the model significantly.

You are simply wrong on so much in the face of actual data it's difficult to even have a rational discussion.

---

A day or two ago you told me that mitigation was modest at best. When I pointed out that this weighed in favor of the model's accuracy, you promptly reversed yourself and declared that we'd literally implemented every recommendation from the study.

Both of those things can't be true...unless you're telling me the IC recommendations were modest, which I know you don't believe. So if you want to have a rational discussion, let's stick with the evidence instead of clinging to old dogma and torturing the facts until they comply. The fact is that you were right the first time. Our policies weren't optimal under the model, and we didn't get optimal results. No one should have expected otherwise.

I notice that most of my other points went unaddressed. As for schools, remember that we're talking about an optimal scenario with up to two years of closures. The start of the 2020-21 school year was only five or six months into the pandemic. The more relevant data is from late spring, when the majority of students were back in the classroom. Only four "states" (Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) had orders to close. Thirteen had orders for in-person learning for all grades and one for at least some grades.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Understand that those are suspect cases, which the UK and most other countries define by clinical factors. In other words, with or without a lab test, if you have symptoms then you and your whole family are largely confined at home. How many families do you know that were doing this a year into the pandemic, much less after 18-24 months? With social distancing of the entire population, you would have been similarly confined without a lab test or symptoms. As for schools, how many were actually closed for the 2020-21 school year? By that time there were more states with orders for schools to remain open than with orders to remain closed. The majority had no policy at all.

You might argue that none of this was relevant after the vaccine came out. But it took time to build enough supply to make the vaccine generally available, not to mention the challenge of getting people to take it. Nor was there any way to predict the nature of the Delta variant or how it would respond to the vaccine. These aren't flaws in the study design. They're the inherent limitations of working with a model early in the pandemic. The authors are careful to emphasize that they have limited data and can't precisely measure the effectiveness of interventions that were never tried on such a scale. What they could do, which was extremely useful, was give a reasonable idea of the severity of the threat and the feasibility of various responses. And let's be honest--even their most optimistic projections were ridiculed. Was that understandable in March 2020? Maybe. There's a lot less excuse with three more years of data staring you in the face.

Which brings us to the present reality. Just as we now know that the virus was indeed a serious threat, most rational people also know that the vaccine saved a lot of lives. Of course anything is up for debate if you have data showing otherwise. Glib dismissal of the science doesn't cut it any more. Y'all were way too wrong for way too long a time, and most of you still don't see it.

---

Why lie Sam? When you're shown to be wrong you make things up to try and appear right. For one point, the vast majority of students in the US were still not back to classroom teaching a full year after the pandemic started. So you are way off on that. In fact only 4 states had mandates requiring school districts to offer in person learning to start the 2020-2021 school year.

Great Britain, who more aggressively than the US enforced the recommendations, still under performed the model significantly.

You are simply wrong on so much in the face of actual data it's difficult to even have a rational discussion.

---

A day or two ago you told me that mitigation was modest at best. When I pointed out that this implied a longer time window (and thus a more accurate model), you promptly reversed yourself and declared that we'd literally implemented every recommendation from the study.

Both of those things can't be true...unless you're telling me the IC recommendations were modest, which I know you don't believe. So if you want to have a rational discussion, let's stick with the evidence instead of clinging to old dogma and torturing the facts until they comply. The fact is that you were right the first time. Our policies weren't optimal under the model, and we didn't get optimal results. No one should have expected otherwise.

I notice that most of my other points went unaddressed. As for schools, remember that we're talking about an optimal scenario with up to two years of closures. The start of the 2020-21 school year was only five or six months into the pandemic. The more relevant data is from late spring, when the majority of students were back in the classroom. Only four "states" (Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) had orders to close. Thirteen had orders for in-person learning for all grades and one for at least some grades.

---

Then you misunderstood (or I typed it wrong). I was implying that mitigation impact was modest, and that's at best. In fact, that's the exact point of why this failed model was such a failure. Not only was it used to implement over reaching approaches, the approaches didn't deliver and we continued to stick with them repeatedly. As someone who said from the beginning that the "virus is gonna virus" regardless of what we do, that's pretty much what has played out. I never said the virus wouldn't be severe, especially late Spring/early Summer 2020 when it showed to be aerosolized. In fact I set an expectation of 200k - 400k deaths a year until an effective vaccine and that was before understanding Delta and omicron. Now that the vaccine hasn't been what I'd classify as effective, we've stayed at those numbers. And yes, I've said it has saved lives, so don't come at me about that.

I've addressed your other points ad nauseam, including the model projections. But you don't respond to data. Even your school closing argument isn't correct as the other states left it up to local decision, and 3/4s of the nations 100 largest school districts started the school year fully virtual. Many who transitioned to hybrid even went back fully virtual as the winter COVID surge materialized. In fact schools being fully open really didn't occur until the vaccine had become widely available. It was in fact part of the Biden admins policy statements to get things fully open for the 21-22 school year.

We now have the data on outcome with the overlapping periods of mitigation policies and the results don't match. It's what actually happened, but you're still arguing about the nuance of the theoretical. I mean do you realize that the UK government implemented every single one of their recommendations for periods of 18+ months, including severe lockdowns and mask mandates, and their actual deaths were 5 times greater than the model predicted? You have nations who completely isolated and are just recently opening up slightly while having a highly vaccinated population, and COVID is raging. Yet you're justifying back to these debunked COVID strategies, and the study that justified them by overstating the negatives of nothing and the positives of their recommendations? You want to talk about irrational dogma.

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

---

My wife's brother was case #2 in California (a southwest chief pilot), in the same icu as case #1. It was at that point she decided that she would become educated beyond "take tylenol until you can't breathe then go to the hospital". I have personally treated around 100 for covid and long-covid as it isn't in my specialtyand am happy to help. She has treated several thousand over the last three years as it is in her specialty. I have been a witness. The Christmas cards thanking her for saving lives are overwhelming I'm. You don't have to believe me. But I have to state what I've seen.

---

So in your expert medical opinion, what do you think of the OP's premise that the Covid vaccine is causing otherwise healthy adults to drop dead?

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

---

My wife's brother was case #2 in California (a southwest chief pilot), in the same icu as case #1. It was at that point she decided that she would become educated beyond "take tylenol until you can't breathe then go to the hospital". I have personally treated around 100 for covid and long-covid as it isn't in my specialtyand am happy to help. She has treated several thousand over the last three years as it is in her specialty. I have been a witness. The Christmas cards thanking her for saving lives are overwhelming I'm. You don't have to believe me. But I have to state what I've seen.

---

So in your expert medical opinion, what do you think of the OP's premise that the Covid vaccine is causing otherwise healthy adults to drop dead?

---

As far as this 37 y/o gent in the article, I have no earthly idea. As far as the random european soccer player or high school athlete etc, I have no idea. I'll let people smarter than me sort it out.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

JXL said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Let's go! https://t.co/XwuuWFEdNH

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) December 26, 2022

---

It wasnt just twitter but all social media. I had a post zapped off nextdoor for recommending people take 5k iu of vitamin D daily to help their immune system. Imagine censoring posts advising people to take vitamins for health. The post was removed for Covid misinfo when 90% of all people are vitamin D deficient.

---

That's a shame. Plenty of studies pointed to people that were Vitamin D deficient doing worse with covid. I took D and also zinc thinking best case it will help and worst case it won't hurt. My RN wife and my MD both gave their blessing.

I took D, zinc and my my normal multi vitamin. When I got covid I took ivermectin and didn't miss any work and felt fine (worked remote). Did ivermectin help? IDK but others that got covid at the same dinner party where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin. So I'll take it again. Had congestion and 100.5 temp but felt pretty normal and good enough to work. I've felt much worse with the flu than with covid. Anyway that's my experience.Yes, your experience And this is proof of nothing "but others that got covid at the same dinner part where I got it did not fare as well and they did not take ivermectin." You completely ignore that you have no knowledge of their medical history.

---

---

I also took ivermectin, glutathione and vitamin D. My covid lasted 3 days. Ivermectin works and it couldve saved 1000s of lives if the govt didnt do a smear campaign against using it at the first sign of covid but the govt never wanted to save lives they just wanted to force vaccines on people for profit.

---

Except that it doesn't actually work.

---

DEBUNKED

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results... 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.

---

Do you have a link to that analysis? The studies I've found concluded that ivermectin was ineffective.

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483?resultClick=1

---

Have you treated anyone with covid?

---

What does my personal experience have to do with the studies I cited?

---

Just curious. If you haven't seen thousands of covid patients treated, I can understand your adherence to limited studies. Cheers.

---

How many Covid patient have you treated?

---

My wife's brother was case #2 in California (a southwest chief pilot), in the same icu as case #1. It was at that point she decided that she would become educated beyond "take tylenol until you can't breathe then go to the hospital". I have personally treated around 100 for covid and long-covid as it isn't in my specialtyand am happy to help. She has treated several thousand over the last three years as it is in her specialty. I have been a witness. The Christmas cards thanking her for saving lives are overwhelming. You don't have to believe me. But I have to state what I've seen.

---

Regardless of the extent of your experience, you still need a control to compare it against in order to come to any conclusion about treatment effectiveness.

---

You are absolutely right in clinical trials, indeed it is advantageous. I've done many of them in the past. My experience now is clinical practice, which is a whole nother ball o' wax. Treatment is the goal.

Speaking of controls, I wish the original vaccine trials had done this rather than crossing over all the controls to the treatment arm. No long term data.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

With few exceptions, the Constitution is still suspended as far as I can tell. However, John MacArthur's church got paid for the harassment they had to endure.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/john-macarthur-covid-settlement-california-church-grace-com.html

We will see what comes of the entanglement of the federal government and various anti-social media outlets.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

Does your special friend speak to you at night when you are trying to sleep? Do you hear his voice when you are alone in the car?

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

So, no problems with the Dear Leader wanting to terminate parts of the Constitution?

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.