• The KillerFrogs

COVID-19 Threads

HFrog1999

Member
The disease changes over time (new variants) as does our immunity. So yeah, the science literally does change. Definitely things to learn/change from how the world handled the pandemic, but one of them is not to have the same approach the whole time. Just because an approach is right later in the pandemic doesn’t mean it is the right approach earlier in it.

Yet, Desantis opened his economy and removed mask mandates early and Florida was better for it. Because it was always the right approach.
 
Yet, Desantis opened his economy and removed mask mandates early and Florida was better for it. Because it was always the right approach.
He definitely gave the wrong advice about masks but I think opening things up earlier was the right move , especially in schools. Masks are something I feel even more strongly about in retrospect during the high spread/ low immunity period of a pandemic. The takeaway on the board that “masks don’t work” is one of the more unfortunate conclusions most have reached.
 

HFrog1999

Member
He definitely gave the wrong advice about masks but I think opening things up earlier was the right move , especially in schools. Masks are something I feel even more strongly about in retrospect during the high spread/ low immunity period of a pandemic. The takeaway on the board that “masks don’t work” is one of the more unfortunate conclusions most have reached.

Well, the real world data clearly shows the mask mandates were unnecessary and ineffective.

I wonder how many people were fined or assaulted by police over those ridiculous mandates

I also wonder how many people unnecessarily got sick or died because they thought incorrectly that a cloth face mask would protect them from an airborne respiratory virus

The doctors and scientists behind the Great Barrington declaration were absolutely right

The misery caused over the last 2 1/2 years was completely unnecessary, but I think the Economic and Political destruction was a feature not a flaw.

This is all part of the Great Reset, and they’re not even hiding it

 
Well, the real world data clearly shows the mask mandates were unnecessary and ineffective.

I wonder how many people were fined or assaulted by police over those ridiculous mandates

I also wonder how many people unnecessarily got sick or died because they thought incorrectly that a cloth face mask would protect them from an airborne respiratory virus

The doctors and scientists behind the Great Barrington declaration were absolutely right

The misery caused over the last 2 1/2 years was completely unnecessary, but I think the Economic and Political destruction was a feature not a flaw.

This is all part of the Great Reset, and they’re not even hiding it

The what and when on combating a pandemic is debatable but there has to be some sort of “what and when”. A nihilistic approach to a pandemic is not an option.

I think it is important to note that the US has one of the highest death rates in the high GDP world and we had one of the least aggressive approaches all in all. That isn’t the only important measure for the “right” approach of course, but it is arguably the most important.
 

Bob Sugar

Active Member
The what and when on combating a pandemic is debatable but there has to be some sort of “what and when”. A nihilistic approach to a pandemic is not an option.

I think it is important to note that the US has one of the highest death rates in the high GDP world and we had one of the least aggressive approaches all in all. That isn’t the only important measure for the “right” approach of course, but it is arguably the most important.
The US Government also incentivized hospitals to classify anything and everything as COVID for guaranteed reimbursement reasons.
 

HFrog1999

Member
The what and when on combating a pandemic is debatable but there has to be some sort of “what and when”. A nihilistic approach to a pandemic is not an option.

I think it is important to note that the US has one of the highest death rates in the high GDP world and we had one of the least aggressive approaches all in all. That isn’t the only important measure for the “right” approach of course, but it is arguably the most important.

The Great Barrington Declaration wasn’t “nihilistic” and it’s intellectually dishonest to classify it as such.

It advocated following the actual science and data by protecting the vulnerable without destroying our economy and liberties

Destroying our economy, the middle class and our liberties were the goals of the Global Elite who want to “Reset” our world

You will own nothing and you will be happy
 
The Great Barrington Declaration wasn’t “nihilistic” and it’s intellectually dishonest to classify it as such.

It advocated following the actual science and data by protecting the vulnerable without destroying our economy and liberties

Destroying our economy, the middle class and our liberties were the goals of the Global Elite who want to “Reset” our world

You will own nothing and you will be happy
That’s basically the approach we are doing now. The question is when is the right time for such an approach during a pandemic. I think there is a good argument for it is after the delta surge. I don’t think think there is a good one before that, even in retrospect.
 

HFrog1999

Member
That’s basically the approach we are doing now. The question is when is the right time for such an approach during a pandemic. I think there is a good argument for it is after the delta surge. I don’t think think there is a good one before that, even in retrospect.

We are going to pay for what they did for years. This recession, inflation and misery is a direct result of the tyrannical approach to Covid

Before Covid, I had a positive opinion of the CDC and vaccines in general. Now I don’t trust them at all
 
We are going to pay for what they did for years. This recession, inflation and misery is a direct result of the tyrannical approach to Covid

Before Covid, I had a positive opinion of the CDC and vaccines in general. Now I don’t trust them at all
Is it a approach to Covid or Covid itself to blame? The whole world has experienced similar economic downturn, regardless of the approach. Again, we overall had one of the least aggressive approaches but still were hit really hard economically, arguably worse than many of the more aggressive approaches.
 

TxFrog1999

The Man Behind The Curtain
Is it a approach to Covid or Covid itself to blame? The whole world has experienced similar economic downturn, regardless of the approach. Again, we overall had one of the least aggressive approaches but still were hit really hard economically, arguably worse than many of the more aggressive approaches.
Although COVID was "novel" it was hardly abnormal for a respiratory virus. We've seen how these sorts of viruses behave and mutate long before Wuhan released this particular virus on the world. If you wade through the pre-vaccine posts in this thread many of us asked the simple question, "what happens when the virus mutates?" This wasn't a surprise to non-medical professionals who paid attention, so then why were the "experts" caught off-guard? Why did the CDC go against previously established norms, guidelines, and scientific fact to push lockdowns and ineffective mandates? Those are the questions we need to ask, and demand our "leaders" answer under oath.
 

Frog79

Active Member
He definitely gave the wrong advice about masks but I think opening things up earlier was the right move , especially in schools. Masks are something I feel even more strongly about in retrospect during the high spread/ low immunity period of a pandemic. The takeaway on the board that “masks don’t work” is one of the more unfortunate conclusions most have reached.
Well then show us proof that they do work. Before covid there was never any question that masks don't prevent viral respiratory illnesses and dozens of controlled studies confirmed this. So do you think the SARS-COV-2 virus is different from all other respiratory viruses in including SARS-COV-1? If so then you need to prove it.

Here is a good source showing that masks are worthless in the context of Covid spread:


150+ studies showing masks don't work:

 
Last edited:
Although COVID was "novel" it was hardly abnormal for a respiratory virus. We've seen how these sorts of viruses behave and mutate long before Wuhan released this particular virus on the world. If you wade through the pre-vaccine posts in this thread many of us asked the simple question, "what happens when the virus mutates?" This wasn't a surprise to non-medical professionals who paid attention, so then why were the "experts" caught off-guard? Why did the CDC go against previously established norms, guidelines, and scientific fact to push lockdowns and ineffective mandates? Those are the questions we need to ask, and demand our "leaders" answer under oath.
I think there were a lot of unknowns from the beginning that everyone acknowledged but public health leaders were put in a position to lead and make guidelines based on the the best current “knowns”. Those are going to be second guessed with the second guessers* having the upper hand since the guidelines necessarily have to be made before new knowledge is gained (and the science “changes”) and because the second guessers can make up whatever “alternate reality” outcomes they want.

That’s not to say our approach shouldn’t be questioned, either in real time or retrospectively. And I do think there is a lot we could have done better, in particular wrt to schools and the negative consequences on learning and development. But I think it will be real hard to accuse anyone who was in a position of leadership during the pandemic of trying to do anything other than trying to reduce morbidity and mortality from Covid-19. As someone on a committee to do just that on a micro level in a hospital I can say that that was the motivation behind any rules we made (which were often not popular).

*I’m not denigrating second guessers here- one because it is important to have a real time robust debate about our approach and also because people are negatively impacted by the guidelines and mandates utilized to combat the disease.
 

Eight

Member
I think there were a lot of unknowns from the beginning that everyone acknowledged but public health leaders were put in a position to lead and make guidelines based on the the best current “knowns”. Those are going to be second guessed with the second guessers* having the upper hand since the guidelines necessarily have to be made before new knowledge is gained (and the science “changes”) and because the second guessers can make up whatever “alternate reality” outcomes they want.

That’s not to say our approach shouldn’t be questioned, either in real time or retrospectively. And I do think there is a lot we could have done better, in particular wrt to schools and the negative consequences on learning and development. But I think it will be real hard to accuse anyone who was in a position of leadership during the pandemic of trying to do anything other than trying to reduce morbidity and mortality from Covid-19. As someone on a committee to do just that on a micro level in a hospital I can say that that was the motivation behind any rules we made (which were often not popular).

*I’m not denigrating second guessers here- one because it is important to have a real time robust debate about our approach and also because people are negatively impacted by the guidelines and mandates utilized to combat the disease.

when you literally make up the assumptions used in your models and deny to consider any other alternative views then you leave yourself wide open to being second guessed

additionally, it damn near is border line offensive when you write the the phrase "and because the second guessers can maker up whatever "alternative reality" outcomes they want"

this is the very scheissing thing brix and her forecast of the death toll in america did, faucci , and that lying sack of [ #2020 ] from oxford and yet when anyone openly challenged them true scientific discourse did not take place and you throw out lines like alternative reality

you are better than this sink or just a world class troll
 
Last edited:
when you literally make up the assumptions used in your models and deny to consider any other alternative views then you leave yourself wide open to being second guessed

additionally, it damn near is border line offensive when you write the the phrase "and because the second guessers can maker up whatever "alternative reality" outcomes they want"

there is the very scheissing thing brix and her forecast of the death toll in america did, faucci , and that lying sack of [ #2020 ] from oxford and yet when anyone openly challenged them true scientific discourse did not take place and you throw out lines like alternative reality

you are better than this sink or just a world class troll
Gosh I thought I made a measured non-offensive post trying to find a middle ground. I obviously failed at that! I think I will go back to posting about Trump’s boxes of documents! I got a lot less grief from that, lol.

I would like to emphasize my last point however. I was (am) on a committee charged with coming up with guidelines for my hospital. It was an extremely difficult and humbling process. We obviously leaned a lot on CDC guidelines and I appreciate them very much. If we had to totally make up guidelines out of whole cloth we would have gotten a lot more grief. I can say our express purpose was to reduce spread of Covid in the hospital (and transitively saves lives). The idea that we were motivated by anything else is what is offensive. I will gladly go “under oath” to acknowledge that. I am 100% sure the CDC and public health and infectious disease were motivated by the same thing.
 

Eight

Member
Gosh I thought I made a measured non-offensive post trying to find a middle ground. I obviously failed at that! I think I will go back to posting about Trump’s boxes of documents! I got a lot less grief from that, lol.

I would like to emphasize my last point however. I was (am) on a committee charged with coming up with guidelines for my hospital. It was an extremely difficult and humbling process. We obviously leaned a lot on CDC guidelines and I appreciate them very much. If we had to totally make up guidelines out of whole cloth we would have gotten a lot more grief. I can say our express purpose was to reduce spread of Covid in the hospital (and transitively saves lives). The idea that we were motivated by anything else is what is offensive. I will gladly go “under oath” to acknowledge that. I am 100% sure the CDC and public health and infectious disease were motivated by the same thing.

problem is sink, the experts have admitted that they skewed numbers and projections to get THEIR desired result which violates the very principle of scientific discovery

no doubt you acted in what you believed was being honest and upright, but again, those in charge not only didn't but have come outright and said so which is nothing short of academic fraud

then you mix in issues such as the lack of understanding of the real world for those who created the models for the gates projections and i just don't buy that those who were providing information early on did so with honesty and integrity
 
problem is sink, the experts have admitted that they skewed numbers and projections to get THEIR desired result which violates the very principle of scientific discovery

no doubt you acted in what you believed was being honest and upright, but again, those in charge not only didn't but have come outright and said so which is nothing short of academic fraud

then you mix in issues such as the lack of understanding of the real world for those who created the models for the gates projections and i just don't buy that those who were providing information early on did so with honesty and integrity
Well we are over 1 million deaths in the US and 6.5 in the world, so even if the assumptions were off, it seems like the projections that this would be a catastrophic pandemic illness pretty much bore out?

I do think you make good pints. There were definitely several instances where scientific certainty was expressed more than there really was. I also think that contrary opinions were inappropriately silenced with the “it’s science” rebuttal. Both of those were mistakes/offenses by public health leaders. But I really do think those charges with generating and promoting guidelines and recommendations were doing so because they thought it was the right thing to do to limit morbidity and mortality from Covid.
 

Eight

Member
Well we are over 1 million deaths in the US and 6.5 in the world, so even if the assumptions were off, it seems like the projections that this would be a catastrophic pandemic illness pretty much bore out?

I do think you make good pints. There were definitely several instances where scientific certainty was expressed more than there really was. I also think that contrary opinions were inappropriately silenced with the “it’s science” rebuttal. Both of those were mistakes/offenses by public health leaders. But I really do think those charges with generating and promoting guidelines and recommendations were doing so because they thought it was the right thing to do to limit morbidity and mortality from Covid.

the 1 M sounds like a big number, but i think we sometimes lose perspective on these numbers.

first, suspect that number references 2020-2022 because the cdc only shows 350K covid deaths for 2020.

not downplaying those deaths, but compare those deaths to the number of deaths attributed to heart disease over that very same period of time. what, heart disease claims roughly 650-700K american lives a year. that projects to 1.7+ M deaths over that same time period.

then when you consider that we have known the cause of heart disease for decades one might ponder what could have been achieved in terms of "saving the lives of americans" had we thrown half the energy and resources into battling heart disease and other accompanying other causes of death such as hypertension and diabetes as was thrown at covid

globally, 6.5M is a big number, but consider the worlds population is around 8B, well you are talking less than 1/10 of a percent of that group and when you consider the WHO says that 3.5M people die EACH year from water related diseases, which again we know the cause and effective correction measures, well, that 6.5M isn't quite as big as the over 8M who died for completely preventable diseases
 
Top