Liminal: always welcome your (or anyone's) perspective on this. What State do you live in, if I may ask?
Your individual perspective isn't necessarily a representation of the broader experience
, of course. Neither is mine, but my talking points on this topic are based on information obtained across regions, globally. Not only where I live.
I also have spoken to a number of doctors, scientists (virologists, epidemiologists, and also cognitive scientists) within the broader NYC region, in addition to my review of a significant amount of case studies, papers, articles, thought pieces, and my own analysis of the raw data.
Some of the doctors/scientists I spoke with had more or less establishment views on this virus. Others did not (meaning: they align more closely with many of the comments I've shared here since last year). I absorbed all the info they provided and then dug deeper.
Among doctors/scientists, there aren't uniform views on this virus or the gene therapies posing as 'vaccine' treatment (as an aside, you should check out the mRNA/Gene Therapy thread - would be interested in your take on the info shared there); doctors and scientists are humans, after all, and humans aren't infallible. While there are 'rebels' in any field, some doctors/scientists will give into herd mentality
just as much as 'regular' humans do. Others are tempted by funding/grants that will influence the outcome or framing of their stance, or otherwise a number of doctors will simply go along with status quo/establishment views -- and they may well earnestly believe these views. Why wouldn't they? Just as many individuals with higher education are generally more prone to believe and trust authorities and establishment sources, so too will many doctors follow protocols as laid out by their training. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all true, or sound (or on the converse: flawed). We need only observe the (often suppressed) instances of medical malpractice, or yearly deaths in this country due to medical negligence, misdiagnosis or faulty treatments. Add to that the myriad side-effects from many of the prescribed medications, which often don't manifest in earnest for years, and generally, when side effects eventually take their toll, it's due in no small part to aggregate ills (diet, medicines, poor exercise, stress, etc.).
Take a look at Iam's anecdote here for one example:viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42212&start=45#p693990
Of course, there are also plenty of examples of doctors and scientists that are invaluable in their respective fields
-- and many that have saved lives.
By no means am I suggesting that we shouldn't rely on them. Simply that: their views and/or perspectives need to be considered along with other factors/data points to arrive at an informed position on a given topic. That's my approach, anyway. Others will proceed as they deem fit, hopefully/ideally with minimal inherent bias.
The key issue for me -- which is very much a MAJOR issue, in my view -- is how this virus has been implemented to restrict, and eventually (potentially) remove individual rights and privacy (or rather, further erosion of such rights; we've been incrementally stripped of a number of rights over the years; this is merely the next relatively large leap), leading to outright technocratic fascism (or whatever you may prefer to call it).
Why is it so difficult to consider that systems that have historically subjugated their respective populace -- (particularly those of middle/lower classes, regardless of race -- though of course the darker skinned folks have had it worse overall), which hasten loss of livelihood and lives -- would continue to do so now,
or 'up the stakes'?
I mean, we haven't already forgotten the astronomical wealth transfer over the past year, right? The very wealthy became even more obscenely wealthy, and the middle/lower classes became poorer and less healthy overall, all due to lockdowns that clearly have NOT
in any way "helped", at least not when enforced over any extended period. They've worsened circumstances in every category.
So how can this still be a debate, here in RI?
And look, even relatively mainstream sources are beginning to call out the INJUSTICE:https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/s ... age-slants
Study: U.S. Media's Covid Coverage Slants Heavily Negative
Mainstream outlets stoke fear while shielding us from encouraging facts
If you’ve felt the media has heavily emphasized bad news throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, your judgment now has some scholarly corroboration.
Dartmouth College and Brown University researchers have analyzed tens of thousands of Covid-19 articles and found major U.S. media outlets have overwhelmingly pushed negative narratives about the virus.
“The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-U.S. stories are classified as negative,” according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.
Consider one of study’s most glaring findings: Even when Covid-19 cases were falling nationally between April 24 and June 27, major media discussed rising caseloads 5.3 times as frequently as falling ones.
The impact was evident: A June CBS News poll found a record number of Americans felt the fight against coronavirus was going badly. Of course, news of the poll was itself another negative story, feeding a media-facilitated vicious circle of fear.
In July, a Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll found Americans had a poor understanding of the risk of Covid-19 death for different age cohorts:
Participants said people aged 55+ accounted for a little over half of the deaths, when the actual share was 92%.
Those under age 25 accounted for just 0.2% of deaths—participants overestimated the share by a factor of 50.
[continued at link]
Or this recent release by Amnesty International:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/po ... 2/2021/en/
Amnesty International released its annual report on Wednesday, arguing that governments have used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to clamp down on human rights, whether or not that was the original intent. The wide-ranging report took particular aim at governments in Myanmar and Russia, among others, but also critiqued the use of coronavirus-related police powers in places like Britain and the United States against protesters.
“What we found is that the victims of COVID, whether it was in the UK, in France, in the US, in India, in the Middle East, in Brazil, those victims were primarily among the most disenfranchised and vulnerable groups,” she said. “As a global community, as a national community, we failed the test that COVID-19 represented.”
And with respect to analysis of raw data, a chart that compares states that stopped mandates vs. those that continue to enforce them (yes, the chart includes Biden's ill-chosen use of the word "Neanderthal", understandably so:https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/13799 ... 16513?s=20
Another chart, also playing on the "Neanderthal" theme:https://twitter.com/therealarod1984/sta ... 67968?s=20
Even the f'ing TODAY SHOW is calling out the 'conundrum' in case count variances per region (those with mandates vs. those without):
https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/13 ... 63360?s=20
Some states with stricter rules are now seeing surges in COVID-19 cases, while many others that rushed to reopen are experiencing sizable drops. The numbers have experts scratching their heads. @SamBrockNBC has the details.
Cant hide from the math. Not only has the south built up more natural immunity, but the vaccine rollouts have generally targeted seniors in TX & FL for example: The most vulnerable being protected. Maybe a small endemic seasonal bump coming for the south, but thats it.
I’ll give the experts two hints:
These are just a few examples. There are many, many charts out there that display the ineffectiveness of lockdowns (using raw data available to anyone). Lockdowns were NEVER about "flattening the curve" or improving health prospects. They've demonstrably done the opposite: WORSEN overall health.
It's absurd, and will be viewed by future generations as CRIMINAL.
Back to my earlier point, this 'humorous' graphic displays a truth that is often acknowledged non-verbally by those in science but rarely uttered out loud: