[flagged]
Keeping deaths to ~1/4 million would have been theoretically possible from extreme social distancing until total mandatory vaccination of the population was achieved.
I’m rather glad we didn’t go down that route, but it’s worth remembering when we opened things up it was with full knowledge that people would die from those choices.
For instance the current geopolitical regime is certainly informed, in part, by the economic and political effects which originated as a consequence of and during COVID and shutdown mandates. And these economic effects have also affected policy and personal behaviors. It's a whole Pandora's box, and we won't be able to measure it with any meaningful resolution for... Probably decades... And even then there will be conflation because attributing overdose deaths to economic issues emanating from shutdown policies five years after the fact isn't a trivial argument to make, but nonetheless isn't an impossibility when considering actual human circumstances.
And then considering what may have occurred on the obverse, where actually minimal intervention was taken, is also impossible to surmise. But I don't think it's unrealistic to have a meaningful boon. It may be the case that in spite of all the intervening circumstances that mortality would have ultimately been comparable due to the half-hearted nature which may have just been a collosal disruption. e.g. we hit a saturation point which lead to peak mortality and policy failed to modify the consequent mortality in the range beneath it.
And yet another where minimal, targeted interventions a la the Great Barrington Declaration were deployed.
And since nobody acts in isolation in a globalist society it will be yet more difficult to ascertain.
So bandying about mortality numbers, I think, is insufficient when there have been so many consequences which have evolved from COVID policies, many of which are qualitative and difficult to quantify but have considerable meaning outside the silly abstractions we conjecture carry so much meaning.
Less pollution in 2020 will have positive health effects for decades to come vs significant economic harm which is where the uncertainty comes in. If we don’t know if the impacts are positive or negative we must default to looking at the net effect we can measure and add error bars around it for the things we can’t calculate.
Can we?
> There were quite a lot of damages from pushing experimental vaccines with little efficacy. I think we will find the fallout of that soon enough.
Is the implication that 1 million people died (or will die) from the vaccines? Seems like I've been hearing that conspiracy theory from day one.
They gaslit us on so many topics throughout the years. They have went back on their statements on Ivermectin
They have went back on their statements on efficacy of the jabs - starting from 99% effective down to 10% - indicating they never had any tangible data to support their claims
They said that the jabs were about stopping transmission, then gaslit saying they never said that despite hundreds of hours of recording saying otherwise
Fauci admitted the 6 ft distancing had no science / data behind it.
Should I bring forth the damage caused by thrusting stage 2 ventilators on people?
What about the damage from vaccines with myocarditis and GBS?
You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but the official narratives are more riddled with inconsistencies than the "conspiracies" were
Now back to your original question of can we dispense with the data that is knowingly bad - yes.
Comorbidities were enough to do that, along with false attribution. Ofcourse these topics were heavily censored, creating even more discourse.
I can buy that they never had tangible data. But can you point me to a source for them claiming only 10% effective?
Although it is variant specific and from 5-11 age group
I've seen a 2 minute long video showing the declining percentages mainstream media claimed on the vaccine over the course of 3 months. Perhaps this one particular article was dishonest however.
Saying “comorbidities but censorship” only solidifies that you’re not willing to take an impartial look at anything.