Going to jail

originally posted by: Madviking
You do realize that studies have come out saying most masks don't have a statistically significant effect on Covid transmission don't you?

So your point is a non sequitur. Most of these policies have failed, therefore the continuing and draconian imposition of them is a move of power and tyranny.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Terpene

If you pay the fine, it doesn't go on your record.

and, was it worth it?

You do realize that people have died from the disease.

Honestly, what do you think anyone is going to do with your maskedness?

There's a disease going about and they are trying to do stuff to stop it spreading.

They aren't getting warm cosy feelings at night knowing that people are complying with masking rules. It means little to them, except that it might help slow down the disease in the population.

The hallmark of one losing an argument is ad hominem attacks. Your last comments here were such.

I posted the CDC data. Please address my point. The covid narratives have often been inaccurate, and not matched the data. Many policies, from mask mandates to six foot distancing and school closures, absolutely were not based on the available science. Therefore, at best it's incompetence, but there is sufficient evidence for malfeasance.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Terpene

If you pay the fine, it doesn't go on your record.

and, was it worth it?

You do realize that people have died from the disease.

80,000 people died of the flu in 2018, why weren't you people pushing for vaccine and mask mandates then?

The CDC were pushing for mass flu vaccinations back then.

But according to the CDC, it was only 52,000 who died of flu that year, and that had been the worst flu season in 10 years. COVID-19 in 2021 had more than 10x those deaths. There's no comparison.

Disease Burden of Flu

Let's try this again. 95% of "covid deaths" had 4 average comorbidities. Only 5% of them solely had Covid as a cause, meaning the numbers are extremely inflated or inaccurate at best.

So 5% of the 908,571 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the US is 45,429 dead.

Covid has been manipulated for power and politics. Only the blind cannot see.

Only 5% of covid deaths solely due to covid: CDC

Comorbidities and other conditions
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.

And what exactly are they going to spend all that maskedness on?

Where's the regime change? Where's the economic collapse? Where's the cull?

You need to leave the basement and go outside.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

Did you miss the part where I said mandates?

No, I'm generally against mandates, too.

But there is so much BS and misinformation that some gullible people are extending a preventable health situation, denying it even exists, denying the most proven medicines, and denying that it could affect them, and those they love, with irreversible consequences.

Their civil disobedience has exactly the same effect as bioterrorism. I'm against that too. At least forcing people to wear a mask isn't going to kill people.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

If the vaccine works then take it.

I have. All three shots currently recommended.

What does it matter if someone else doesn't want to take it as long as it works for you? Why do you feel the need to chime in on other people's business? If they don't take it and they get covid-19 that's their business not yours.

Inoculations work against diseases as campaigns, and when multiple people develop an immune response that begins to suppress the number of 'open' hosts for a disease pathogen. It is all about the numbers of a population that turns the tide against an infectious disease. So a few 'hold-outs' have far more effect than just themselves and their own situation.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah he should rot in jail, he probably killed a couple thousand because of his 2min visit in a bakery.

Already got your rotten tomatoes?

Law is law and he takes the consequences, what is your problem?

In one day? That's fairly rapid decomposition.

However, no matter how trivial you may naively think his actions were to him or his life, his actions have potentially deadly consequences. That is why responsible authorities are taking the stance with such seriousness.

906,727 people in the US have died, with their deaths attributed to this disease, already. In Switzerland, it is 12,824 people.

The masks do not work as claimed, unless wearing n95 or above, which most people are not. Nor are these required by law.

This was known in 2020, and before.

www.rcreader.com...

reason.com...

Secondly, the science and data show that only 5% of "covid deaths" were solely due to covid. The remaining 95% of people who were listed as covid deaths had an average of four comorbidities.

Masks as filters against viral particles aren't that effective due to the size of viral particles being so much smaller than the holes in the weave.

However, masks as a medium for reducing the distance that exhaled particles will travel, have been provably effective and that is the reason for masks.

Face masks cut distance airborne pathogens could travel in half, new study finds

Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

If the vaccine works then take it.

I have. All three shots currently recommended.

What does it matter if someone else doesn't want to take it as long as it works for you? Why do you feel the need to chime in on other people's business? If they don't take it and they get covid-19 that's their business not yours.

Inoculations work against diseases as campaigns, and when multiple people develop an immune response that begins to suppress the number of 'open' hosts for a disease pathogen. It is all about the numbers of a population that turns the tide against an infectious disease. So a few 'hold-outs' have far more effect than just themselves and their own situation.

If this was about science, you and these "public health officials" would be accounting for naturally acquired immunity. Until 2020, herd immunity was composed of the percentage that had either natural immunity or vaccination. They removed the former. Why?

Can you explain why you aren't accounting for those with naturally acquired immunity?

WHO changes definition of herd immunity to exclude natural immunity in 2020

The screenshots from the WHO’s website are real. The first herd immunity definition is from the June 9 version of the COVID-19 serology Q&A page. The second definition is from the November 13 version of the same page. There has actually been a recent update to the webpage since these claims began circulating that made further changes, and that update is from December 31.

You can see that the June 9 version had a one-paragraph definition for herd immunity that said it is the “indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

The Nov. 13 version, however, focused entirely on vaccination and said “'herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”

The Dec. 31 version that is now displayed includes the definition from the June 9 version with further clarification that the WHO supports achieving herd immunity through vaccination rather than mass infections.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: chr0naut

But according to the CDC, it was only 52,000 who died of flu that year, and that had been the worst flu season in 10 years. COVID-19 in 2021 had more than 10x those deaths. There's no comparison. 

Well that's a lie.

Then show some credible contrary data.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

So what's your number? 80,000 people isn't enough dead bodies for you to push your agenda so how many is? Your logic is flawed. To hell with those 50k-80k dead people enough to fill a sizable city that's not enough. LMAO

Just admit it, it's about people like you wanting to control others, it's not about people dying. Why does someone else's medical decisions that don't affect you (because you have your vaccination) bother you so much?

Stay in your own lane and let adults make their own decisions.

WTF would anybody get out of the fact that you get forced to wear some PPE?

Honestly, think!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

So what's your number? 80,000 people isn't enough dead bodies for you to push your agenda so how many is? Your logic is flawed. To hell with those 50k-80k dead people enough to fill a sizable city that's not enough. LMAO

Just admit it, it's about people like you wanting to control others, it's not about people dying. Why does someone else's medical decisions that don't affect you (because you have your vaccination) bother you so much?

Stay in your own lane and let adults make their own decisions.

WTF would anybody get out of the fact that you get forced to wear some PPE?

Honestly, think!

Power, and control. Honestly, think!

There's no evidence it's necessary for kids in k-12, nor are the school lockdowns. Why are they pushing it there? No seriously, the school policies are actively harming children.

For young children, there is emergent evidence the masking may be retarding their cognitive development, including language acquisition and facial recognition.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

If the vaccine works then take it.

I have. All three shots currently recommended.

What does it matter if someone else doesn't want to take it as long as it works for you? Why do you feel the need to chime in on other people's business? If they don't take it and they get covid-19 that's their business not yours.

Inoculations work against diseases as campaigns, and when multiple people develop an immune response that begins to suppress the number of 'open' hosts for a disease pathogen. It is all about the numbers of a population that turns the tide against an infectious disease. So a few 'hold-outs' have far more effect than just themselves and their own situation.

This is actually a good point because the disease will stick around and continue to mutate and side step the current vaccinations and continue to kill as opposed to being eradicated.

ETA: However this is the situation we have with the flu. We just stay on top of the mutations with new vaccinations and the pharmaceutical companies make money, those who want a Vax get it, those that don't don't, and the spread remains under control without mask mandates or Vax mandates. Everyone is happy. We can treat covid the same.

originally posted by: Madviking
Your data is way off. Covid lethality rate is .5% or less, before the vaccination wave and natural immunity.

Secondly, that rate includes 95% of covid deaths which had 4 average comorbidities. If we remove those, the death rate falls drastically below .1%.

Why won't you address this data I provided you?

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, firstly, the data you provided did not say that COVID-19 wasn't a primary cause of death in those 95% of cases where there were comorbidities. That is what you have inferred, but there's nothing that says that.

You see, more than one disease at one time can be contributory to the death of a person. In fact, that is the usual way people die. The total disease burden exceeds what the body can handle, and the person dies of multiple organ failure - i.e: comorbidities.

Why not throw away the last few percent too, due to observational errors and cognitive bias?

LOL

And really, you are using CDC as a source to prove your point (which as I have pointed out was based upon misconception), while denying the validity of other CDC numbers which just happen to disagree with your opinion?

To really make any sort of case against those CDC numbers you don't like, you have to find an alternate data source (and that isn't someone's guess, it has to have valid data collection, criteria, and compilation).

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

If the vaccine works then take it.

I have. All three shots currently recommended.

What does it matter if someone else doesn't want to take it as long as it works for you? Why do you feel the need to chime in on other people's business? If they don't take it and they get covid-19 that's their business not yours.

Inoculations work against diseases as campaigns, and when multiple people develop an immune response that begins to suppress the number of 'open' hosts for a disease pathogen. It is all about the numbers of a population that turns the tide against an infectious disease. So a few 'hold-outs' have far more effect than just themselves and their own situation.

This is actually a good point because the disease will stick around and continue to mutate and side step the current vaccinations and continue to kill as opposed to being eradicated.

Precisely, that is why responding quickly, in large numbers, is of the essence. You don't want to give the disease time, and hosts, to mutate in.

originally posted by: Madviking
The hallmark of one losing an argument is ad hominem attacks. Your last comments here were such.

I posted the CDC data. Please address my point. The covid narratives have often been inaccurate, and not matched the data. Many policies, from mask mandates to six foot distancing and school closures, absolutely were not based on the available science. Therefore, at best it's incompetence, but there is sufficient evidence for malfeasance.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Terpene

If you pay the fine, it doesn't go on your record.

and, was it worth it?

You do realize that people have died from the disease.

80,000 people died of the flu in 2018, why weren't you people pushing for vaccine and mask mandates then?

The CDC were pushing for mass flu vaccinations back then.

But according to the CDC, it was only 52,000 who died of flu that year, and that had been the worst flu season in 10 years. COVID-19 in 2021 had more than 10x those deaths. There's no comparison.

Disease Burden of Flu

Let's try this again. 95% of "covid deaths" had 4 average comorbidities. Only 5% of them solely had Covid as a cause, meaning the numbers are extremely inflated or inaccurate at best.

So 5% of the 908,571 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the US is 45,429 dead.

Covid has been manipulated for power and politics. Only the blind cannot see.

Only 5% of covid deaths solely due to covid: CDC

Comorbidities and other conditions
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.

And what exactly are they going to spend all that maskedness on?

Where's the regime change? Where's the economic collapse? Where's the cull?

You need to leave the basement and go outside.

I disagree there. The CDC have made recommendations based upon the science of multiple papers, and expert opinions, and their recommendations therefore changed as more information came to light.

If the CDC had stuck to their initial recommendations unwaveringly, it would have been ignoring the science. Science is ever-changing and scientific knowledge accumulates, occasionally there is a discovery or change of perspective that overturns previous beliefs.

What is also occurring is public misinformation by some people who have their own theories, and distrust everyone who at one stage said something that doesn't fit their opinions. Usually these people also have no actual basis for what they feel, and when asked for verification, can only point to the very people they distrust the most.

Some of these people, even publish 'sciency' sounding papers that support their opinion. But they often disagree entirely with existing science.

This is just like the tobacco companies did to try and counter all the medical studies that showed that smoking causes numerous diseases. But these 'scientific papers' were soon revealed to be bogus. So how did we know? We already had papers that said the exact opposite thing, and we delved into the sponsors of the various papers and found that people were paid to lie.

This same technique has been used to deny climate change and other things where vested interests would loose out to real science. That is why proper peer review and academic agreement is so critical in the days of "alternate truths" and astroturfed popularity.

a reply to: chr0naut


If you read the data, and explanatory notes, it's clear that they made a policy position to attribute it to Covid rather than any of the other comorbidities. It isn't just this fact, they state that many cases were "presumed positive" not tested positive. Moreover, up to 15,000 "covid deaths" were for cases such as drug overdoses, falls, and poisonings.

The fact remains, any medical policy that automatically attributes 95% of deaths, with 4 average comorbidites (including heart attacks, cancer, diabetes, drug overdoses, etc), to "primarily covid," is not purely scientific or completely accurate. It is a set of assumptions and protocols. Surely, some were primarly covid, but given the data I have provided we can also safely assume some were not. Only 5% of these deaths solely having covid as the cause should be a red flag to anyone being objective. We could just as easily create a different operational definition.

By the way, the CDC tacitly recognized this "conspiracy theory" recently, stating there is a difference between dying with covid versus from.

www.foxnews.com...

But note here in 2021, she is now flipping the protocols above, where those with vaccination are dying WITH covid not from it. And, here in this article, she is stating that there are only 223 breakthrough cases. LOL.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky drew criticism on Sunday for her method of identifying COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., making a sudden distinction between those who died "from" the virus and those who died "with" it.

During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Walensky was asked about vaccinated Americans who have contracted the virus – and whether anyone has died from an infection, despite being inoculated. Walensky said the CDC is aware of 223 so-called "break-through" infections in vaccinated Americans, but clarified that many of those individuals died due to other causes.

"Not all of those 223 cases who had COVID actually died of COVID," she said. "They may have had mild disease but died, for example, of a heart attack."

But critics pounced on Walensky's reasoning.

"After all this time, we are going to start distinguishing died ‘with’ Covid from died 'from' Covid," one Twitter user wrote. "How anyone lives with the dishonest reporting of numbers is beyond me. Either we treat all the deaths with the same questioning or none of them, Period."

Another user wrote: 'So she literally just admitted that the covid death count isn’t a real count of covid deaths. The response to this pandemic gets more baffling by the day."

Others suggested that all COVID-19 deaths should be re-examined to determine whether the person died "from" the virus or "with" it.

Here's more recently. Note that she misrepresents the CDC's own data, saying "75% have four comorbidities." The CDC's own damn table and website says 95%, which I've provided. I have yet to see that 75% figure in their own comorbidity table.

townhall.com...

After years of government lockdowns, restrictions, school closures and mandates controlling the lives of the American people, Centers for Disease Control Director Rochelle Walensky is finally admitting what we already knew to be true.

"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75 percent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So really, these were people who were unwell to begin with," Walensky told "Good Morning America" Friday.

At least four comorbidities.

In other words, generally healthy people are not at high risk of dying from the disease. We've known this since summer 2020, and yet, healthy people have been forced to quarantine and work remotely, or not at all, since the pandemic started.

CDC director says over 75% of covid deaths were people with “at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with”
pic.twitter.com/Oq6Oh2qk90

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) January 10, 2022
Further, during an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Walensky exposed the data on deaths from Wuhan coronavirus vs. with the disease is mixed together and therefore, completely contaminated. Regardless, the bad data has been used by government officials to justify shutting down schools, regulating private businesses and violating individual medical sovereignty with vaccine mandates.

For posterity from the CDC data:

Comorbidities and other conditions
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.

They also admit now masks don't work that well. Lockdowns weren't effective on death rate, and very destructive. School shutdowns were not science based, and very destructive. So many things us critics were right on over a year ago, and were called "conspiracy theorists." When are you and the establishment going to catch up?

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

If the vaccine works then take it.

I have. All three shots currently recommended.

What does it matter if someone else doesn't want to take it as long as it works for you? Why do you feel the need to chime in on other people's business? If they don't take it and they get covid-19 that's their business not yours.

Inoculations work against diseases as campaigns, and when multiple people develop an immune response that begins to suppress the number of 'open' hosts for a disease pathogen. It is all about the numbers of a population that turns the tide against an infectious disease. So a few 'hold-outs' have far more effect than just themselves and their own situation.

If this was about science, you and these "public health officials" would be accounting for naturally acquired immunity. Until 2020, herd immunity was composed of the percentage that had either natural immunity or vaccination. They removed the former. Why?

Can you explain why you aren't accounting for those with naturally acquired immunity?

WHO changes definition of herd immunity to exclude natural immunity in 2020

The screenshots from the WHO’s website are real. The first herd immunity definition is from the June 9 version of the COVID-19 serology Q&A page. The second definition is from the November 13 version of the same page. There has actually been a recent update to the webpage since these claims began circulating that made further changes, and that update is from December 31.

You can see that the June 9 version had a one-paragraph definition for herd immunity that said it is the “indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

The Nov. 13 version, however, focused entirely on vaccination and said “'herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”

The Dec. 31 version that is now displayed includes the definition from the June 9 version with further clarification that the WHO supports achieving herd immunity through vaccination rather than mass infections.

Natural immunity and vaccinated immunity both wane after only a few months. This is why reinfections are happening. Numbers of posters on ATS have had threads where they posted about their reinfections with COVID-19.

At one stage it was believed that reinfection with COVID-19 was rare, but new data has shown that it isn't so rare. Also, it has now been shown that infection with one strain does not preclude simultaneous infection with another, so one strain isn't as protective naturally against another, as was initially hoped.

To get multiple infections of a disease means that you are exposed to the potential risks again and again. However, one can get the repeated immune boosts by repeated vaccinations and provided the vaccine works effectively against each strain, this removes a lot of the multiple risks that would be incurred if the exposure was to a live pathogen.

At some stage, it is anticipated that the virus will mutate and be selected for in such a way that it becomes relatively benign, but will also serve to reinnoculate people against the worst of the disease. That isn't happening quite yet, but there are signs that Delta and Omicron strains are heading in that direction.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

So what's your number? 80,000 people isn't enough dead bodies for you to push your agenda so how many is? Your logic is flawed. To hell with those 50k-80k dead people enough to fill a sizable city that's not enough. LMAO

Just admit it, it's about people like you wanting to control others, it's not about people dying. Why does someone else's medical decisions that don't affect you (because you have your vaccination) bother you so much?

Stay in your own lane and let adults make their own decisions.

WTF would anybody get out of the fact that you get forced to wear some PPE?

Honestly, think!

Power, and control. Honestly, think!

There's no evidence it's necessary for kids in k-12, nor are the school lockdowns. Why are they pushing it there? No seriously, the school policies are actively harming children.

For young children, there is emergent evidence the masking may be retarding their cognitive development, including language acquisition and facial recognition.

Really? Like the way surgeons over the last 300 years have become so impaired? Please present the studies?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

Did you miss the part where I said mandates?

No, I'm generally against mandates, too.

But there is so much BS and misinformation that some gullible people are extending a preventable health situation, denying it even exists, denying the most proven medicines, and denying that it could affect them, and those they love, with irreversible consequences.

Their civil disobedience has exactly the same effect as bioterrorism. I'm against that too. At least forcing people to wear a mask isn't going to kill people.

You are pro mandate . You’re one of the bigger if not the biggest proponents of mandates and lockdowns of anyone I’ve ever heard . I honestly can’t believe you said that. The misinformation comes from cnn , our politicians, drug companies and people like you .
How is anyone extending a preventable health situation? What does anyone’s beliefs have anything to do with getting covid or not? You get it or you don’t, doesn’t matter your opinions about it . No one wants lockdowns. No one wants our economy to go In the tank , no one wants our loss of freedoms .

The mainstream media and our politicians denied that ivermectin works . They all called it horse dewormer . How many people did they kill by putting them on ventilators ? I would call bioterrorism giving millions to the communist Chinese government to do gain of function testing. Specifically taking virus from bats and giving them to humans .

Living in a one one world totalitarian government with no freedom. Absolutely no guns or freedom of speech isn’t going to necessarily kill people either . I never got behind BLM or antifa looting and burning our cities down but I sure as hell respect people standing up for their human rights . We don’t have to take any experiments into our body no matter what our corporate overlords tell us .

a reply to: chr0naut

But that wasn't the argument for the vaccine push and even mandates. They claimed that it would be two shots and done, originally, maybe a booster, and denied natural immunity full stop. Natural immunity was even demonized in some media sources as a "anti vax theory."

Also, it turns out the vaccines as they are, are not effective against Omicron, and possibly even Delta.

Moreover, for a disease that is very low risk for healthy people under a certain age, there is no support for the mandates and demonization of the unvaccinated. The vaccines do not stop transmission nor infection, and thus cannot be stated to "stop the spread." Because that is true, forcing children or young adults to get vaccinated is not science based. When you add in natural immunity to low risk groups with pre-immunity survival rates of 99.99%, it's even more ill advised. 700 or less children died of covid in the US, virtually all with comorbidities. Most are virtual zero risk. Protect the high risk of any age, get them vaccinated (although it no longer works against Omicron).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

So what's your number? 80,000 people isn't enough dead bodies for you to push your agenda so how many is? Your logic is flawed. To hell with those 50k-80k dead people enough to fill a sizable city that's not enough. LMAO

Just admit it, it's about people like you wanting to control others, it's not about people dying. Why does someone else's medical decisions that don't affect you (because you have your vaccination) bother you so much?

Stay in your own lane and let adults make their own decisions.

WTF would anybody get out of the fact that you get forced to wear some PPE?

Honestly, think!

Power, and control. Honestly, think!

There's no evidence it's necessary for kids in k-12, nor are the school lockdowns. Why are they pushing it there? No seriously, the school policies are actively harming children.

For young children, there is emergent evidence the masking may be retarding their cognitive development, including language acquisition and facial recognition.

Really? Like the way surgeons over the last 300 years have become so impaired? Please present the studies?

Wow, stellar rebuttal there. So adult surgeons are developing cognitively and linguistically still, like very young children?

principia-scientific.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Results showed the early learning composite mean result dropped by a whopping 23 per cent, from a high of just under 100 in 2019, to around 80 in 2020, and finally 77 in 2021.

Meanwhile, the verbal development quotient also dropped dramatically, from an average of 100 in 2018 to just below 90 in 2020, and around 70 in 2021.

The non-verbal development quotient also experienced a similar dip, from a mean score of around 105 in 2019, to 100 in 2020 and around 80 in 2021.

The study concluded that 'children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.'

'In addition,' the report adds, 'masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socioemotional processing.'

originally posted by: chr0naut

Natural immunity and vaccinated immunity both wane after only a few months.

lie