Lockdowns didn't work.

PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
I fully support that people should be taking medical advice from medical professionals that are licensed through a governing body. No comment beyond that.
Click to expand...
Great, I'm glad to hear that you support the licensed doctors who prescribed Ivermectin to their patients for covid, in an off-label manner.
 
HGCC

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Tbh, I think that's fine. Personally, I would find myself a new doctor, but I do see that as something between a doc and patient. It's not a whole lot different than weed doctors to me.

Medical boards that license those docs may have some differing views, I got no comment on that.
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
The last that I saw, Invermectin did not show any measurable evidence that indicated any benefit for treatment of covid19. So if your doctor is prescribing a treatment that goes against your local health authorities advice, maybe seek a few other medical professional opinions.

If you break your arm and the doctor tells you to shove a frozen water bottle in your sphincter to relieve the pain - would you not get actual medication from another doctor or do you just grab the ice bottle? I personally would find another doc for the medication for pain relief.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
The last that I saw, Invermectin did not show any measurable evidence that indicated any benefit for treatment of covid19. So if your doctor is prescribing a treatment that goes against your local health authorities advice, maybe seek a few other medical professional opinions.

If you break your arm and the doctor tells you to shove a frozen water bottle in your sphincter to relieve the pain - would you not get actual medication from another doctor or do you just grab the ice bottle? I personally would find another doc for the medication for pain relief.
Click to expand...
I went to four orthodontists who all wanted to break my daughter's jaw, until I got a fifth opinion and found one who does alternate treatment, and the results have been very positive thus far.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
I went to four orthodontists who all wanted to break my daughter's jaw, until I got a fifth opinion and found one who does alternate treatment, and the results have been very positive thus far.
Click to expand...
Lots of alternatives to jaw surgery, amazing it took 5 to find that out :(
Edit: assuming it was an alignment issue
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
I went to four orthodontists who all wanted to break my daughter's jaw, until I got a fifth opinion and found one who does alternate treatment, and the results have been very positive thus far.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it continues to be positive and she gets to avoid that surgery. My wife had to get her jaw broken to fix a class 3(underbite) and was one of the very unlucky ones that had the bone shatter. Took a bit longer to heal, but all worked out well.

Doctors that explore alternative treatment are great, as long as they do it in a responsible manner.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The very term "lockdowns" is evidence some people engage in thinking that accepts a forcible hierarchy based in force rather than reason is an acceptable thing. That seems kind of self evident, but not ever really discussed, which is a little disconcerting. Okay, ALOT disconcerting.

It's an unfortunate result of mass cognitive shutdown or at least slowdown (a kind of sluggish mental lockdown) working hand in hand with near universal learned authority worship. It's frighteningly quite prevalent and speaks to the emphasis on eradicating critical thinking in favor of obedience. That's a different topic, but useful to know in the planning and implementing of lockdowns.

Knowing the above, I'd say "lockdowns" worked in part, since their purpose was said to be to prevent spread of a poorly understood outbreak of something, but in reality they served to condition many people to accept even more authoritarian control. Or even for those who didn't mentally accept it, they obeyed it.

In that sense, lockdowns MAY have worked initially, but one of the benefits of lockdowns as time passes is, more "normal people" now see authoritarianism as not such a good thing. So in that sense the unintended consequences of "lockdowns", mask orders, vaccine passes and all the attendant foaming at the mouth of the noncritical thinkers may have caused some back fire. I'm glad of that.

I think people should be free to lockdown if they like or even wear those silly blue masks that say right on the box they don't work against covid, but to insist other people lockdown is a sign of mental illness, a manifestation of control issues and other psychological trauma suffered.

The lockdowns are really a symptom of a greater problem, the gullibility and immaturity of most humans is what I think the real underlying problem is. People are easily lead and misled, which is why I am both saddened and amused by their behavior.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Meanwhile, back in the real world,

thehill.com

Vaccine hesitancy is surging again, regardless of the science

Vaccine refusal was never about choice it seems, it was always about the need to vilify something that your opponents were championing and trying to force on you.
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
An opinion article?

Question.. Based on this section from the article you posted:

"They were badly mistaken, and President Gerald Ford backed a mass vaccination program urged by Sencer, which was not only useless in protecting Americans against a virus that never actually threatened them but appeared to be associated with more than 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (ascending paralysis).

What hasn’t been written about enough is the public protest and the lawsuits. These occurred even before the public knew that there was no pandemic and were tied to the Guillain-Barre cases. President Ford was forced to indemnify the drug companies and transfer the responsibility to the federal government. Public confidence in vaccines suffered for decades afterward."

Why should we indemnify drug companies at all, if vaccines are safe? If they are safe, then there should be no liability concerns. Even if the drug companies do get sued, they should be able to absorb legal costs out of the billions they made from the vaccine, which was largely subsidized by public funds in the first place.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

So here is David Nabarro, the WHO special Envoy on Covid 19 saying that the lockdowns were a failure. It's still lacking credibility though because he also says he doesn't know where the virus originated.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:

So here is David Nabarro, the WHO special Envoy on Covid 19 saying that the lockdowns were a failure. It's still lacking credibility though because he also says he doesn't know where the virus originated.
Click to expand...
My take on it is lockdowns worked better at the beginning of the pandemic, but with each newly evolved strain it became even more contagious until it became much more infectious, rendering lockdowns less effective. When vaccines became available the point became moot, towards the end of them in the west they were only used when the local hospital systems were overwhelmed. The experience with lockdowns in Asia was different, especially in China where they went way overboard, here in North America they were brief and less restrictive.

Remember the virus evolved and was a different animal than when it first appeared, Darwin selects for contagion, not virulence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top