Loading ...JOHN’S HOPKINS UNCOVERED
Jeff Childers is BRILLIANT….Look at this analysis…We now know why John’s Hopkins which is Very Closely Associated with Gates Event 201 and indeed the Whole Plandemic allowed a Study to be published that showed LOCKDOWS were devastating to the Economy and to Public Health…Jeff has got them fihured
LOOK at this the Lockdowns were…wait for it….Trumps Fault !!
see the comment
Last week there was much media chatter about a new study from Johns Hopkins, a meta analysis finding not only have lockdowns failed to reduce mortality during the pandemic, but they have caused tremendous societal harm. First, the researchers observed that non-lockdown countries did fine:
Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others.
Um, what about Sweden? Oh, never mind. Next, the researchers even said that lockdowns might have made mortality rates worse: “Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality.”
But the costs! Lockdowns are pretty expensive, when you think about it:
The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.
Oh, Johns Hopkins! How dare you question the Narrative? Wait … sorry … that was Narrative 1.0. It’s okay to question that one now. In fact, maybe this new study was made to order, it’s so helpful to Narrative 2.0. Thanks Johns Hopkins!
? I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, but doesn’t this all just make Biden look terrible, because he’s the one who ordered all those devastatingly ineffective lockdowns? Nope. It’s all President Trump’s fault.
The headline of a Washington Examiner article published yesterday says, “White House Casts COVID-19 Lockdowns as a Trump-era Relic.” The article uncritically reported that, when asked about the new Johns Hopkins study suggesting that the negative effects of lockdowns far outweigh any positives, freckled White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded that most of America’s lockdowns occurred during the Trump administration. It was all Trump’s idea.
In fact, Psaki said lockdowns were NEVER part of Biden’s plan for shutting down the virus. Never. “Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president,” she said. “What our objective has been is conveying that we have the tools we need to keep our country open.”
No more lockdowns. Apparently. “We have the tools to avoid lockdowns, and we’re not moving back,” Psaki said. “That’s our intention at this point.”
? As Narrative 2.0 shifts into full gear, it is time to remind everyone of Glenn Reynold’s December 30 op-ed in the New York Post titled, “We Must Make Public Health Authorities Accountable For Their Covid Lies.”
Reynolds graciously allows that honest mistakes are forgivable. Nobody’s perfect. Even pivots are okay, since you’re supposed to change your mind when you realize that you were wrong.
But, Reynolds said, lies and political manipulation are different. Those are a betrayal of trust, and they’re especially serious because trust is the public health community’s greatest asset. The experts have had a perfectly awful record during the pandemic, and according to Reynolds, now we need investigation and accountability.
He mentions the summer protests, widely endorsed by marionette-like public health experts while they were still saying it was reckless and dangerous for regular folks to congregate, the “gain of function” flip-flop debacle, and that many “public health” scientists publicly encouraged Pfizer to slow-walk the release of its mRNA vaccine until after the election so that Trump couldn’t take the credit, for just a few examples.
Reynolds concluded saying it’s time for a rigorous investigation — like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with subpoena power — to get to the bottom of how our public health authorities mismanaged this pandemic.
I couldn’t agree more. The experts will soon be politically vulnerable. Since the politicians skillfully offloaded all the pandemic-response decisions to them, the public health experts are now primed to be thrown onto the pyre as sacrificial goats. The evidence I’m right is that the administration is using NEW experts to publish Narrative 2.0. The old experts are depleted, the useful strength of their expertise now fully exhausted. They are political liabilities now.
As for me, I plan to help with the throwing. There are a lot of goats to toss into the fire.