Pandemic started in a lab:

[Say it aint so]

The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.

​

Opinion | Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity

The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic.

www.wsj.com

​

​

Virus origins, lockdowns, school closures, masking, natural immunity, vaccine mandates, vaccines preventing transmission, the need for everyone to be boosted annually... the list goes on and on (and on and on) of things that just one year ago had you questioned aloud, you would have been criticized, ostracized and perhaps outright banned from social media platforms. Those same topics are all up for legitimate debate now. And this is the danger of allowing the government to decide what is and is not acceptable to be discussed in the public square.

That's really why I'm interested in this topic. I want to know why the government was so very anxious to stifle all discussion on this topic when it has been a plausible explanation since day one.

I think people have a hard time remembering covid here in the US. To sit and wait for natural immunity to take effect without masks or school clousures or lock-downs would have exacerbated our already overworked first responders and overran ICUs. Remember, that situation was at hand even WITH masks and lock-downs. Deaths would be far more than they are now. I recall Sweden kind of went the business as usual herd immunity route, but later had to resort to masks and lock-downs. So yeah, I question those who think this revelation about natural immunity without the usage of masks, lock-downs and school closures would have been just fine.

 

[Hank77]

Three days ago a close friend died from pneumonia, he was covid positive.

 

[probinson]

I think people have a hard time remembering covid here in the US.

As do I.

To sit and wait for natural immunity to take effect without masks or school clousures or lock-downs would have exacerbated our already overworked first responders and overran ICUs.

Not likely, since masks and lockdowns were highly ineffective.

Remember, that situation was at hand even WITH masks and lock-downs.

Yes, but you're beginning with the faulty presumption that masks and lockdowns helped. Most of these mitigation measures were nothing but pointless theater that accomplished absolutely nothing.

Deaths would be far more than they are now.

Except masks don't (and didn't) save lives, despite all the propaganda that stated otherwise. Nor do lockdowns. In fact, there's compelling evidence that lockdowns caused far more damage than benefit. Lost education for our kids, missed routine checkups and vaccinations, an escalating mental health crisis in which kids are 3x more likely to commit suicide than they are to die from COVID... the list goes on. Lockdowns were a novel intervention that proved very damaging. It will take us years to understand the full extent of the collateral damage caused by lockdowns enacted by foolish politicians who wanted to be seen as "doing something".

I recall Sweden kind of went the business as usual herd immunity route, but later had to resort to masks and lock-downs.

You started this post by saying you think people are misremembering things. I would encourage you to go back and look at what has actually happened in Sweden, as they did indeed take a very different approach but had a very similar long-term outcome, actually faring better than many other European countries.

Let’s look at excess mortality as a key example. This metric takes the total number of deaths and compares this figure with pre-pandemic levels, capturing the wider effects of the pandemic and accounting for incorrect reporting of COVID deaths.​

​

Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were actually among the lowest in Europe.​

​

The decision to keep primary schools open also paid off. The incidence of severe acute COVID in children has been low, and a recent study showed that Swedish children didn’t suffer the learning loss seen in many other countries.​

​

So, Did Sweden's No-Lockdown COVID Strategy Pay Off?

As much of the world shut down early in the COVID pandemic, Sweden remained open. The country’s approach was controversial, with some calling it “the Swedish experiment”. But almost two-and-a-half years after the pandemic began, what can we say today about the outcomes of this “experiment”?

worldcrunch.com

​

So yeah, I question those who think this revelation about natural immunity without the usage of masks, lock-downs and school closures would have been just fine.

In addition to the fact that you're pretending that masking and lockdowns were helpful, you're completely missing the point. Vaccinations were mandated on people under the guise that if you were not vaccinated, you were somehow more dangerous to those around you. This was NEVER true, and many people lost their jobs and were ostracized and discriminated against for NO VALID REASON. Anyone who supported this discrimination now finds themselves on the wrong side of history.

There was never any justification for vaccination mandates, particularly on people who had already had COVID and lived to tell the tale (as 99.997% of people who got COVID did).

Would things have "been just fine"? Of course not. We were dealing with a novel pathogen. But it's telling that almost all of the world tossed their pandemic preparedness plans in the trash in favor of the Chinese style "lockdowns" while Sweden did not and yet somehow Sweden had some of the lowest excess deaths in Europe.

 

[probinson]

Three days ago a close friend died from pneumonia, he was covid positive.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

 

[Say it aint so]

As do I.



Not likely, since masks and lockdowns were highly ineffective.



Yes, but you're beginning with the faulty presumption that masks and lockdowns helped. Most of these mitigation measures were nothing but pointless theater that accomplished absolutely nothing.



Except masks don't (and didn't) save lives, despite all the propaganda that stated otherwise. Nor do lockdowns. In fact, there's compelling evidence that lockdowns caused far more damage than benefit. Lost education for our kids, missed routine checkups and vaccinations, an escalating mental health crisis in which kids are 3x more likely to commit suicide than they are to die from COVID... the list goes on. Lockdowns were a novel intervention that proved very damaging. It will take us years to understand the full extent of the collateral damage caused by lockdowns enacted by foolish politicians who wanted to be seen as "doing something".



You started this post by saying you think people are misremembering things. I would encourage you to go back and look at what has actually happened in Sweden, as they did indeed take a very different approach but had a very similar long-term outcome, actually faring better than many other European countries.

Let’s look at excess mortality as a key example. This metric takes the total number of deaths and compares this figure with pre-pandemic levels, capturing the wider effects of the pandemic and accounting for incorrect reporting of COVID deaths.​

​

Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were actually among the lowest in Europe.​

​

The decision to keep primary schools open also paid off. The incidence of severe acute COVID in children has been low, and a recent study showed that Swedish children didn’t suffer the learning loss seen in many other countries.​

​

So, Did Sweden's No-Lockdown COVID Strategy Pay Off?

As much of the world shut down early in the COVID pandemic, Sweden remained open. The country’s approach was controversial, with some calling it “the Swedish experiment”. But almost two-and-a-half years after the pandemic began, what can we say today about the outcomes of this “experiment”?

worldcrunch.com

​

In addition to the fact that you're pretending that masking and lockdowns were helpful, you're completely missing the point. Vaccinations were mandated on people under the guise that if you were not vaccinated, you were somehow more dangerous to those around you. This was NEVER true, and many people lost their jobs and were ostracized and discriminated against for NO VALID REASON. Anyone who supported this discrimination now finds themselves on the wrong side of history.

There was never any justification for vaccination mandates, particularly on people who had already had COVID and lived to tell the tale (as 99.997% of people who got COVID did).

Would things have "been just fine"? Of course not. We were dealing with a novel pathogen. But it's telling that almost all of the world tossed their pandemic preparedness plans in the trash in favor of the Chinese style "lockdowns" while Sweden did not and yet somehow Sweden had some of the lowest excess deaths in Europe.

1. Masks and lockdowns were highly effective to slow the pandemic. It is no coincidence when enacted it also had this effect; "Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year"

2. If Sweden's herd immunity worked so well, why did they change to recommending wearing masks, cut the number of people gathering in half, switched remote learning, and eventually enacted lock downs?

3. Amongst Nordic nations: The highest number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the Nordic countries as of January 13, 2023, had occurred in Sweden at 22,645. Finland followed with 8,431 deaths, Denmark with 8,013, and Norway with 4,963. THIS:

As of April 16, 2021, more than 13 700 people have died from COVID-19 in Sweden. The country has one of the highest infection rates in western Europe according to Our World in Data COVID-19 statistics, with 606 new infections per million per day, while its neighbours Denmark, Finland, and Norway reported 115, 62, and 112 new infections per million per day, respectively (April 15, 2021). New and more infective and deadly variants have taken over, and by April 15, 2021, the UK SARS-Cov-2 variant was suspected to have caused 75–100% of all new cases in all regions. This indicates more rapid spread, more deaths, and that more young people will be affected, with intensive care units already at full capacity in some regions. 4​

4 You may want to reread your link. as in this one, "the lowest in Europe. Look at the map, Sweden is that country in gray which clearly says "Data not available" so not sure how a claim anything lowest in Europe can be made when there is no data available for the country it is being made about.

 

[USincognito]

Let's take a stroll down memory lane and remember how the media addressed people who promoted the now FBI-endorsed lab leak theory.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, one of the media's most rabidly anti-GOP voices, blamed then-President Trump for pushing intelligence agencies into investigating one of his favorite "conspiracy theories." ​

​

...​

​

"The effort comes as President Trump escalates a public campaign to blame China for the pandemic," the Times reporters added. "Most intelligence agencies remain skeptical that conclusive evidence of a link to a lab can be found." ​

​

MSNBC’s Joy Reid took things even further, calling the lab leak theory "debunked bunkum" being pushed by Trump. ​

​

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman appeared on CNN’s since-canceled "New Day"to suggest the theory was political because Trump didn’t share any evidence that COVID began actually in a lab. ​

​

Then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo called the lab leak theory a distraction, while then-CNN correspondent John Harwood suggested the theory was a way for Trump to "deflect blame" from the performance of his administration.​

​

Grabien Media founder Tom Elliott, who tweeted multiple clips of pundits dismissing the theory, also unearthed CNN reporter Drew Griffin bashing the late Rush Limbaugh for mentioning potential lab leaks with "zero proof." ​

​

"CNN has spoken to a half dozen virus hunters who, right now, say anyone who claims they know the exact source of the novel coronavirus is guessing," Griffin said. "Did it come from bats? Most likely." ​

​

In another 2020 segment, Griffin said the theory that COVID began in the Wuhan lab was "widely debunked." ​

​

ABC funnyman Jimmy Kimmel once mocked Trump for embracing the lab leak theory. ​

​

"That’s his new angle to feed the wingnuts, to treat this virus like it was a conspiracy of some kind," Kimmel said. "Tomorrow he’ll blame the Spanish flu on Antonio Banderas." ​

​

"Morning Joe" regular John Heilemann called it a "made up" theory. NBC News correspondent Janis Mackey Frayer offered a look at the lab with a chyron referring to it as at the "heart of conspiracy theories."​

​

Kasie Hunt, who was at MSNBC at the time, bluntly said "we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified," while CNN host Fareed Zakaria said "the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory" when discussing the possibility of a lab leak.​

​

Credibility crisis: Egg on media’s face after dismissing COVID lab leak as 'debunked' conspiracy theory

The COVID lab leak theory is the latest example of journalists dismissing an inconvenient narrative as "debunked" before the facts come in, analysts say.

www.foxnews.com

​

Do you think there will be any self-reflection, admissions of error, or mea culpas of any kind? Don't hold your breath.

The irony of Fox pointing this out (given what we know about how their on air staff deliberately lied so the wouldn't lose viewers) is priceless.

 

[probinson]

1. Masks and lockdowns were highly effective to slow the pandemic.

Nope. The highest quality evidence we have says that masking likely made little to no difference at all.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

It is no coincidence when enacted it also had this effect; "Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year"

Yeah, not so much. When you view a graph of flu cases (below), you'll see that flu cases were declining BEFORE masking was ubiquitous. Also, there is a CDC meta-analysis regarding mask usage for prevention of flu that says this (emphasis added).

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25)​

​

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

​

​

Snce we've already agreed that masking in Sweden was not initially recommended, let's take a look at a comparison of flu cases in Sweden, the US and Australia as compared to when people started masking.

As you can see, flu cases PLUMMETED simultaneously irrespective of mask usage or mandates. Now let's look specifically at the US, and flu cases BEFORE masks were recommended.



Anyone that looks at this data and concludes that masking is the reason for the precipitous decrease in flu cases is simply not being honest.

2. If Sweden's herd immunity worked so well, why did they change to recommending wearing masks, cut the number of people gathering in half, switched remote learning, and eventually enacted lock downs?

Because propaganda the world over was force-fed to people to believe those things would be beneficial, despite mountains of evidence that showed otherwise.

3. Amongst Nordic nations: The highest number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the Nordic countries as of January 13, 2023, had occurred in Sweden at 22,645. Finland followed with 8,431 deaths, Denmark with 8,013, and Norway with 4,963. THIS:

As of April 16, 2021, more than 13 700 people have died from COVID-19 in Sweden. The country has one of the highest infection rates in western Europe according to Our World in Data COVID-19 statistics, with 606 new infections per million per day, while its neighbours Denmark, Finland, and Norway reported 115, 62, and 112 new infections per million per day, respectively (April 15, 2021). New and more infective and deadly variants have taken over, and by April 15, 2021, the UK SARS-Cov-2 variant was suspected to have caused 75–100% of all new cases in all regions. This indicates more rapid spread, more deaths, and that more young people will be affected, with intensive care units already at full capacity in some regions. 4​

Even if this is true, what good is reducing COVID deaths if people die in greater numbers from other causes? This myopic focus on COVID was always foolish. I would often say early on in the pandemic, we're not saving lives, we're simply trading them to other causes.

And why on earth are you looking at data "as of April 16, 2021"? A lot has happened in the almost 2 years since that was published.

4 You may want to reread your link. as in this one, "the lowest in Europe. Look at the map, Sweden is that country in gray which clearly says "Data not available" so not sure how a claim anything lowest in Europe can be made when there is no data available for the country it is being made about.
View attachment 328558

If you read further, you'll see that the data for Sweden for should be published soon (end February is what it says on the article), and if you had scrolled down further, you would have found the data you're looking for.

So let's look at the data that IS currently available on excess deaths from January 2020 through December 2022.

Source: Excess mortality - statistics - Statistics Explained

This is the excess mortality data from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland by month from January 2020 - December 2022. As you can see, there was initially a massive spike of excess mortality in Sweden in 2020, but since then, Sweden has fared better than it surrounding countries pretty consistently and by a pretty wide margin.

Again, you don't just get to count COVID deaths. It's a fair question to ask why, if Sweden's different approach was so wrong, were they at near normal levels of excess mortality in December 2022 while their neighboring countries had excess mortality well above 20%? Preventing deaths from COVID is pretty meaningless if the result is 20% excess mortality from all causes.

 

[Say it aint so]

Nope. The highest quality evidence we have says that masking likely made little to no difference at all.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Yeah, not so much. When you view a graph of flu cases (below), you'll see that flu cases were declining BEFORE masking was ubiquitous. Also, there is a CDC meta-analysis regarding mask usage for prevention of flu that says this (emphasis added).

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25)​

​

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

​

​

Snce we've already agreed that masking in Sweden was not initially recommended, let's take a look at a comparison of flu cases in Sweden, the US and Australia as compared to when people started masking.

View attachment 328567

As you can see, flu cases PLUMMETED simultaneously irrespective of mask usage or mandates. Now let's look specifically at the US, and flu cases BEFORE masks were recommended.

View attachment 328568

Anyone that looks at this data and concludes that masking is the reason for the precipitous decrease in flu cases is simply not being honest.



Because propaganda the world over was force-fed to people to believe those things would be beneficial, despite mountains of evidence that showed otherwise.



Even if this is true, what good is reducing COVID deaths if people die in greater numbers from other causes? This myopic focus on COVID was always foolish. I would often say early on in the pandemic, we're not saving lives, we're simply trading them to other causes.

And why on earth are you looking at data "as of April 16, 2021"? A lot has happened in the almost 2 years since that was published.



If you read further, you'll see that the data for Sweden for should be published soon (end February is what it says on the article), and if you had scrolled down further, you would have found the data you're looking for.

So let's look at the data that IS currently available on excess deaths from January 2020 through December 2022.

View attachment 328566

Source: Excess mortality - statistics - Statistics Explained

This is the excess mortality data from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland by month from January 2020 - December 2022. As you can see, there was initially a massive spike of excess mortality in Sweden in 2020, but since then, Sweden has fared better than it surrounding countries pretty consistently and by a pretty wide margin.

Again, you don't just get to count COVID deaths. It's a fair question to ask why, if Sweden's different approach was so wrong, were they at near normal levels of excess mortality in December 2022 while their neighboring countries had excess mortality well above 20%? Preventing deaths from COVID is pretty meaningless if the result is 20% excess mortality from all causes.

I can't speak to your flu charts since they were not linked. I can speak to your Cochrane study along with the Study out of China since they were linked. They are both essentially studies of a series of studies. The studies they use in the report were pre covid. I think it's clear the behavior during covid of more of a populaces wearing masks, cleaning, and the one thing you seem to neglect here, social distancing were not part of any of those studies. So in reality neither have much value. One more thing, of course, the reason why Sweden changed their behavior to masks, social distancing and remote studying was because they succumbed to propaganda. That must be it. Nothing to do with reacting to having highest per capita COVID death rate of all Scandinavian countries.

HERE this is the largest study done actually during covid:

Abstract​

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial to measure the effect of community-level mask distribution and promotion on symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N = 600 villages, N = 342,183 adults). We cross-randomized mask type (cloth versus surgical) and promotion strategies at the village and household level. Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]), especially among adults ≥60 years old in villages where surgical masks were distributed (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.65 [0.45, 0.85]). Mask distribution with promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.​

Now that's just masks mind you, that is not taking in account social distancing. Or does that not work to stop the spread of infectious disases to you as well? Colds? Flus? Covid? Nothing?

 

[USincognito]

Nope. The highest quality evidence we have says that masking likely made little to no difference at all.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Yeah, not so much. When you view a graph of flu cases (below), you'll see that flu cases were declining BEFORE masking was ubiquitous. Also, there is a CDC meta-analysis regarding mask usage for prevention of flu that says this (emphasis added).

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25)​

​

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

​

​

Snce we've already agreed that masking in Sweden was not initially recommended, let's take a look at a comparison of flu cases in Sweden, the US and Australia as compared to when people started masking.

View attachment 328567

As you can see, flu cases PLUMMETED simultaneously irrespective of mask usage or mandates. Now let's look specifically at the US, and flu cases BEFORE masks were recommended.

View attachment 328568

Anyone that looks at this data and concludes that masking is the reason for the precipitous decrease in flu cases is simply not being honest.



Because propaganda the world over was force-fed to people to believe those things would be beneficial, despite mountains of evidence that showed otherwise.



Even if this is true, what good is reducing COVID deaths if people die in greater numbers from other causes? This myopic focus on COVID was always foolish. I would often say early on in the pandemic, we're not saving lives, we're simply trading them to other causes.

And why on earth are you looking at data "as of April 16, 2021"? A lot has happened in the almost 2 years since that was published.



If you read further, you'll see that the data for Sweden for should be published soon (end February is what it says on the article), and if you had scrolled down further, you would have found the data you're looking for.

So let's look at the data that IS currently available on excess deaths from January 2020 through December 2022.

View attachment 328566

Source: Excess mortality - statistics - Statistics Explained

This is the excess mortality data from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland by month from January 2020 - December 2022. As you can see, there was initially a massive spike of excess mortality in Sweden in 2020, but since then, Sweden has fared better than it surrounding countries pretty consistently and by a pretty wide margin.

Again, you don't just get to count COVID deaths. It's a fair question to ask why, if Sweden's different approach was so wrong, were they at near normal levels of excess mortality in December 2022 while their neighboring countries had excess mortality well above 20%? Preventing deaths from COVID is pretty meaningless if the result is 20% excess mortality from all causes.

Did you read the whole thing?

>>The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. <<

 

[probinson]

I can't speak to your flu charts since they were not linked. I can speak to your Cochrane study along with the Study out of China since they were linked. They are both essentially studies of a series of studies.

Yes, the "gold standard" of evidence.

The studies they use in the report were pre covid.

What's your point? You asserted that masks were the reason that the flu disappeared. I showed you a meta analysis from the CDC that calls that hypothesis into question. Whether or not masks are efficacious to preventing flu infections has nothing at all to do with COVID.

I think it's clear the behavior during covid of more of a populas wearing masks, cleaning, and the one thing you seem to neglect here, social distancing were not part of any of those studies. So in reality neither have much value.

The Cochrane Review on masking has been around for years. It was recently updated with studies from the COVID time period. And, big surprise, they still found that there is likely no benefit to masking.

You don't get to pretend like the Cochrane Review on masking, nor the meta-analysis by the CDC, doesn't matter because they didn't arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to.

One more thing, of course, the reason why Sweden changed their behavior to masks, social distancing and remote studying

You are severely overstating what Sweden actually did. Sweden had far more relaxed mitigation measures all throughout the pandemic than other countries.

was because they sucuumbed to propaganda. That must be it.

Sure it is. The propaganda STILL has people believing TODAY that mask mandates were beneficial in preventing COVID.

 

[probinson]

Did you read the whole thing?

>>The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. <<

I did. In fact, I saw this graphic this morning that I think explains the whole mask debate quite well.

However, all of the highest quality evidence we do have suggests that the mask mandates did next to nothing to improve pandemic outcomes. So the burden of proof now rests on those who say they helped to provide evidence proving benefit.

 

[USincognito]

I did. In fact, I saw this graphic this morning that I think explains the whole mask debate quite well.

View attachment 328573

However, all of the highest quality evidence we do have suggests that the mask mandates did next to nothing to improve pandemic outcomes. So the burden of proof now rests on those who say they helped to provide evidence proving benefit.

An insipid 4chan meme isn't a "graphic", and repeating "highest quality evidence" doesn't change the fact that the authors of your cited metastudy said their data wasn't high quality.

 

[Say it aint so]

Yes, the "gold standard" of evidence.




What's your point? You asserted that masks were the reason that the flu disappeared. I showed you a meta analysis from the CDC that calls that hypothesis into question. Whether or not masks are efficacious to preventing flu infections has nothing at all to do with COVID.



The Cochrane Review on masking has been around for years. It was recently updated with studies from the COVID time period. And, big surprise, they still found that there is likely no benefit to masking.

You don't get to pretend like the Cochrane Review on masking, nor the meta-analysis by the CDC, doesn't matter because they didn't arrive at the conclusion you wanted them to.



You are severely overstating what Sweden actually did. Sweden had far more relaxed mitigation measures all throughout the pandemic than other countries.



Sure it is. The propaganda STILL has people believing TODAY that mask mandates were beneficial in preventing COVID.

1. I just pointed out how both studies are not thorough.
2. I said this regarding the Flu "Masks and lockdowns were highly effective to slow the pandemic. Not just masks. Again, why do you constantly drop the lock down social distance part.
3. Yes, Sweden was a lot more lax than other nations, and they paid for it and made changes.
4. You do remember the overworked first responders and overran ICUs full of covid patients in the US don't you? The idea of doing business as usual and waiting around for natural immunity ( which isn't lasting nor variant immunity ) to cure the pandemic woes is really mind boggling.

 

[probinson]

An insipid 4chan meme isn't a "graphic"

Um, yes it is. Any image is a "graphic". I mean, dictionary.com says this is an "Elementary Level" word, so I thought everyone here would understand what that word meant, but here you go.

and repeating "highest quality evidence" doesn't change the fact that the authors of your cited metastudy said their data wasn't high quality.

You seem to be unaware of the evidence pyramid, which is what I'm referring to when I say "highest quality evidence".

Do you see the arrow on the left that says "Quality of Information"? Do you see that "Meta-analysis" sits atop the pyramid at the highest point?

 

[Pommer]

Three days ago a close friend died from pneumonia, he was covid positive.

Sorry for your loss.

 

[Say it aint so]

Did you read the whole thing?

>>The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. <<

Only (2) of the (78) studies examined were studies done during covid. Kind of hard to make an absolute claim about the effectiveness of masks and cleaning during covid. There are studies that were done during covid, and of course the findings were positive about mask wearing.

 

[probinson]

1. I just pointed out how both studies are not thorough.

Do you accept the studies from CDC's MMWR in support of masking as "thorough"?

2. I said this regarding the Flu "Masks and lockdowns were highly effective to slow the pandemic. Not just masks. Again, why do you constantly drop the lock down social distance part.

Here's another meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.​

​

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

​

​

3. Yes, Sweden was a lot more lax than other nations, and they paid for it and made changes.

The outcome for Sweden today is lesser excess mortality than their neighbors.

4. You do remember the overworked first responders and overran ICUs full of covid patients in the US don't you? The idea of doing business as usual and waiting around for natural immunity ( which isn't lasting nor variant immunity ) to cure the pandemic woes is really mind boggling.

It really isn't, and you thinking that it is shows just how effective the propaganda has been. You think that the counterfactual is that things would have been so much worse if there hadn't been lockdowns and/or masking, but in reality, Sweden was the only one that actually followed their established pandemic preparedness plans.

Just take a look. Here are screenshots from various pandemic preparedness plans.

Australia.

UK

WHO

It won't let me attach any more images, but I have more if you'd like to see them. What this shows is that the idea of "business as usual" as you've described it is almost EXACTLY what EVERY pandemic preparedness plan on the planet recommended prior to COVID. But, then COVID hit and we completely discarded DECADES of established science in these plans to implement novel, unproven mitigation measures that have resulted in IMMENSE collateral damage

 

[probinson]

There are studies that were done during covid, and of course the findings were positive about mask wearing.

Can you cite one? I'm always interested to see what type of evidence people accept after rejecting a Cochrane meta-analysis.

 

[Say it aint so]

Do you accept the studies from CDC's MMWR in support of masking as "thorough"?



Here's another meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.​

​

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

​

​

The outcome for Sweden today is lesser excess mortality than their neighbors.



It really isn't, and you thinking that it is shows just how effective the propaganda has been. You think that the counterfactual is that things would have been so much worse if there hadn't been lockdowns and/or masking, but in reality, Sweden was the only one that actually followed their established pandemic preparedness plans.

Just take a look. Here are screenshots from various pandemic preparedness plans.

Australia.
View attachment 328576
View attachment 328577
View attachment 328578
View attachment 328579

UK

View attachment 328582

View attachment 328581


View attachment 328583


View attachment 328585
WHO

View attachment 328584

It won't let me attach any more images, but I have more if you'd like to see them. What this shows is that the idea of "business as usual" as you've described it is almost EXACTLY what EVERY pandemic preparedness plan on the planet recommended prior to COVID. But, then COVID hit and we completely discarded DECADES of established science in these plans to implement novel, unproven mitigation measures that have resulted in IMMENSE collateral damage

Again, no links less the one you provided which again is a study about studies where some economists use the John Hopkins moniker but make this declaration, "The views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with."

 

[Say it aint so]

Can you cite one? I'm always interested to see what type of evidence people accept after rejecting a Cochrane meta-analysis.

I just provided one in post #28. I read your links when you post them, so I can correct your misnomer. I don't post links for the sheer joy of it.