This will be my first and possibly last tweet (thread) as I am mostly here to learn. It is prompted by a recent study questioning lockdown efficacy that is getting a lot of attention. It appears people believe it to be the first of its kind, but I have been collecting similar
“there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020”
“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
“government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality”
“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions become effective”
“the decline in infections in England...began before full lockdown…[S]uch a scenario would be consistent with...Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown”
“the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).”
“Given that the evidence reveals that the Corona disease declines even without a complete lockdown, it is recommendable to reverse the current policy and remove
the lockdown”
“stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact”
“these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures … experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
“the model does not support [the] estimate that lockdown reduced the case reproduction number R by 81% or that more than three million deaths were averted by non-pharmaceutical interventions.”
“The case of Sweden, where the authors find the reduction in transmission to have been only moderately weaker than in other countries despite no lockdown having occurred, is prima facie evidence”
“general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70 only”
“Strategies that minimise deaths involve the infected fraction primarily being in the
“results presented in the report suggested that the addition of interventions restricting younger people
“We show that [lockdown] is modestly superior in saving lives compared to [focused protection], but with tremendous costs to prevent one case of death. This might result in overwhelming economic effects that are expected to increase future death toll”
“For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals”
“Current policy can be misdirected and can therefore have long and even short-term negative effects on human welfare and thus result in not actually minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities), especially in the long run.”
“For example, the data…shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased...lockdowns with >99% statistical significance. Indeed...infection rates have declined after reopening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.
“restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses).”
“In 14 states, more than 50%
“We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (ie schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021)”
“Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended”
“Our findings … further raise doubt about the importance in NPI’s (lockdown policies in particular) in accounting for the evolution of COVID-19 transmission rates over time and across locations”
“[the] President...has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events…Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe-just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million”
“living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).”
More from Category c19
Title is "Maximum collaboration”, showing @BMI_Bund / Horst Seehofer had a secret paper drafted in the 1st COVID-19 wave that dramatically depicted the threat.
A scandal of gigantic proportions. Thread⬇️
2/: @welt released 2 versions: long version as print, short-edit, online.
This thread focuses on the long version. It's of crucial importance-people around the globe understand this earthshaking scandal. Share.
English: https://t.co/qAbU6D8c0P
German: https://t.co/W2i1FtVrCg
3/: Mid-March 2020: Federal Minister of the Interior-Horst Seehofer (@BMI_Bund, @cducsubt) was on the edge: Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Lothar Wieler (@RKI) urgently warned: Germany was threatened w/ dramatic consequences if the country returned to everyday life too quickly.
4/: Horst Seehofer sent his Secretary of State Markus Kerber into the lane. The plan was to bring together leading scientists: they should produce a paper that would then serve as legitimation for further tough political measures, beyond Easter - now known as the “panic paper”.
5/: Markus Kerber launched a corresponding call to researchers via e-mail, 4 days later, the request was fulfilled: A classified paper, which presented the danger posed by the virus as dramatically as possible, and which quickly spread through the media.
2/: These so-called ‘Doctors’ Trial’ focused on physicians who conducted #inhumane and #unethical human experiments in German concentration camps, in addition to those who were involved in over 3,500,000 sterilizations of German citizens. (the picture shows doctors/criminals)
3/: Ten points of the code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments". They can be found in detail on the following website:
4/: Point #1 means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, or deceit.
5/: Using an insufficiently-tested vaccine on humans is unethical. However, as long as people voluntarily consent to receive the vaccine, being informed about all risks, everything is OK. Doing this with force, however, is against the Nuremberg Code.
Important - share: Camera footage out of care homes (USA, corrected), provided by @RobertKennedyJr's team. You can clearly see: Collateral Damages, Army assisting, force, death.
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra \u30c4 (@Bobby_Network) February 17, 2021
Worldwide phenomen, also in Germany:https://t.co/GV7gqiPl1u
21st Century Nuremberg Trials-material pic.twitter.com/wPekgPYHIR
2/: The interview is significant because @c_drosten made totally sane statements back then that follow the principle of common sense. Considering his involvement in the "genesis of the current pandemic", his assertions appear in an entirely different
The genesis of a pandemic.
— Pace \U0001f642 (@theotherphilipp) February 25, 2021
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread \U0001f9f5 pic.twitter.com/PLbETVv2p8
3/: In 2014, for instance, washing the hands was sufficient against being infected by coronaviruses. Several years he demands measures that destroy national economies and social life worldwide.
4/: Young @c_drosten also severely criticized the fact that Saudi Arabia used the PCR method to detect potential infections. From his point of view, that specific method could lead to many irrelevant cases. Nowadays, his view shifted his opinion towards 'collective punishment'.
5/: Whereas he demands "testing, testing, testing" nowadays and spreads panic and fear via (social) media, he heavily condemned that behaviour of Saudi media in 2014. On top of that, he expressed his concern that medial panic could increase the number of lab tests significantly.
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread 🧵
1/ At the end of December 2019, Wenliang, an eye doctor from Wuhan, noticed an allegedly unusual incidence of pneumonia. It remains a mystery what is unusual about 44 patients in a city with over 8 million citizens during winter.
2/ On Jan. 5, WHO informs for the first time about a pneumonia of unknown cause, which it can clarify by 7 January. The virus is believed to be a close relative of SARS. A fish market allegedly is the origin. The #Zoonosis legend, unproven until today, is born.
3/ On Jan. 10, the first gene sequence of the virus today called #SARS-CoV2 appears at https://t.co/tqxKgyykBr, and on Jan. 12, 4 more sequences are published by @edwardcholmes in the GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data)
4/ As early as January 13, just a single day later, WHO accepts Mr. #Drosten|s PCR testing protocol as gold
You May Also Like
The Swastik is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon. Swastik has been Sanatan Dharma’s symbol of auspiciousness – mangalya since time immemorial.
The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक, pronounced: swastik) &denotes “conducive to wellbeing or auspicious”.
The word Swastik has a definite etymological origin in Sanskrit. It is derived from the roots su – meaning “well or auspicious” & as meaning “being”.
"सु अस्ति येन तत स्वस्तिकं"
Swastik is de symbol through which everything auspicios occurs
Scholars believe word’s origin in Vedas,known as Swasti mantra;
"🕉स्वस्ति ना इन्द्रो वृधश्रवाहा
स्वस्ति ना पूषा विश्ववेदाहा
स्वस्तिनास्तरक्ष्यो अरिश्तनेमिही
स्वस्तिनो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु"
It translates to," O famed Indra, redeem us. O Pusha, the beholder of all knowledge, redeem us. Redeem us O Garudji, of limitless speed and O Bruhaspati, redeem us".
SWASTIK’s COSMIC ORIGIN
The Swastika represents the living creation in the whole Cosmos.
Hindu astronomers divide the ecliptic circle of cosmos in 27 divisions called https://t.co/sLeuV1R2eQ this manner a cross forms in 4 directions in the celestial sky. At centre of this cross is Dhruva(Polestar). In a line from Dhruva, the stars known as Saptarishi can be observed.
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?