Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard, had a similar experience with his article, early in the pandemic, arguing that resources should be focused on protecting the elderly. Stefan Baral, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins with 350 publications to his name, submitted a critique of lockdowns to more than 10 journals and finally gave up. The inquiry found no evidence of wrongdoing, but the smear campaign sent a clear message to scientists: Don’t question the lockdown narrative.Įditors of research journals fell into line, too. Stanford University was so cowed by the uproar that it subjected the researchers to a two-month fact-finding inquiry by an outside legal firm. Merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets of unfair online attacks by other scientists and the press. ![]() In April 2020, John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya and other colleagues reported that the fatality rate among the infected was considerably lower than the assumptions used to justify lockdowns. ![]() We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in the long run than the virus itself.Ī few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk it posed. Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom - and, worst of all, science. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation’s institutions. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about 1 in 500 Americans - typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. ![]() Stop the panicked fearmongering if we want to make the world betterĮnd legacy admissions, too, squad’s absurd attack on court and other commentaryĬDC boss’ utterly laughable exit warning on politicized ‘science’ ![]() He also announced today (May 11) that each region now has a dedicated “regional control group” that will monitor those metrics (hospitalization rates, infection rates, etc.) during each phase and different qualifications will be made based upon them.Meet Jared Polis, a Democratic gov who actually cares about freedom Though the Governor didn’t clarify how much time would pass between phases (previously he had said two weeks), he used his favorite valve metaphor, saying we are “slowly opening the valve, and then we will see the metrics and the numbers.” You can read more details about those phases here. Of course, once we do meet those requirements, the reopening will be conducted in phases, starting with manufacturing/construction/and retail curbside pick-up. There are a few other regions that are very close, like Central New York, which meets 6/7.Īs for NYC? According to the chart from today, May 11, we’re up to 4/7. However, that doesn’t mean that every part of the state can begin reopening then.Īs a reminder, the Governor set seven requirements that each region of New York must meet to begin the reopening process: a 14-day decline in hospitalizations, a 14-day decline in hospital deaths, a three day rolling average of new hospitalizations under 2 per 100,000 residents, 30% of total hospital beds made available, 30% of ICU beds available, 30 per 1,000 residents tested monthly, and at least 30 contact tracers per 100,000 residents.Īreas that can begin reopening on May 15 (they meet 7/7 requirements) include:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |