mhaze,

If it really were the case that you were quoting Fauci in context, then I wouldn’t have been able to put the context to it that I did.

Claiming that I just say a quote it out-of-context when I don’t what it to be true amounts to a mere “Nuh-uh!” You’re going to have to try better than that.

Again, Fauci didn’t say the 6-foot rule was made up from thin air, but that it was based on droplet transmission studies at the time. You keep framing it as though it was completely arbitrary, but the CDC used what knowledge they had then to reduce transmission.

//The point about this whole issue is that the evidence keeps accumulating as to the failures of the whole response to the wuflu.//

What evidence? You haven’t shown any. Don't keep it all to yourself, now. I want in.

"What evidence? You haven’t shown any. Don't keep it all to yourself, now. I want in."

See above.

mhaze,

Oh, so the mounting evidence is a few cherry-picked anecdotes, a misinterpreted Fauci quote, correlation without causation on excess deaths, and a misleading Sweden comparison?

I thought you might have had something else - some actual evidence.

This is getting ridiculous. When I said see above I meant all the stuff I've posted and linked here over the past few years some of which I've referred to in this thread.

I've kept a rather large database of bookmarked reports on the failures of the lockdowns since in my view it is the single greatest public policy failure since Y2K.

Here are a small number of the reports I've pointed to on this and other sites since April 2020.....

http://tiny.cc/zo3nzz
http://tiny.cc/7p3nzz
http://brownstone.org/articles/lockdowns-did-not-save-lives-concludes-meta-analysis/
http://tiny.cc/cu3nzz
http://tiny.cc/hu3nzz

mhaze,

No, it’s not getting ridiculous. You suggested scrolling up, giving no specifics. Then, when I call you out on that, you link me to nearly 100 pages of reading.

Conveniently, you don’t list what exactly it is that is supported in the links you provided. Luckily, we now have the technology now to verify the accuracy of your claims in seconds. So, with no further ado, let’s get started.

The Brownstone meta-analysis relies heavily on selectively chosen studies and omits data that highlights the role lockdowns played in protecting healthcare systems from collapse. Even the meta-analysis acknowledges its own limitations. This doesn’t prove lockdowns failed entirely - it simply highlights studies that fit a specific narrative.

The UNSW report does address the economic toll of Australia’s covid response but also recognizes that early lockdowns were effective in saving lives. You’re interpreting it to fit your viewpoint, but the report doesn’t claim lockdowns were a "mistake," it points out areas that could have been managed differently. That’s far from the collapse you're suggesting.

The Johns Hopkins analysis focuses mainly on economic impacts, but it neglects the public health success in keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed. You’re zeroing in on the economic downsides while overlooking the primary goal, which was to save lives.

The Independent Review critiques parts of Australia's covid response but doesn't label lockdowns as failures. It emphasizes that early actions saved lives, while also offering suggestions for future improvements. This review doesn’t support your arguments.

By the way, Y2K wasn’t just a scare - it was a successful preventative effort. Y2K amounted to nothing not because it was a non-issue, but because proactive measures were taken to prevent it. It’s an ironic comparison, really, because the "failure" you describe was actually a global success story in averting disaster - just like covid lockdowns prevented far worse outcomes.

There’s no use in lying and deceiving nowadays. It’s just too hard to get away with.

"
There’s no use in lying and deceiving nowadays. It’s just too hard to get away with."

Yet you keep trying.

BTW I see you understand Y2K in the same jaundiced way you understand the wuflu issue ie not at all.

It seems you've been beaten down so badly on this that you're now reduced to making the unsupported and unsupportable claim that the lockdowns saved the hospital system. Every time you see evidence that the lockdowns failed to save lives you simply revert to the unsupported assertion that it saved the hospital system without offering any evidence for the assertion. Still we are used to that, aren't we?

Jurisdictions which didn't lockdown didn't see any collapse in their hospital system but you'll ignore that because.....well just because.