So you think the difference is the outdoor masking mandate?
Only because he's a proven idiot.
So you think the difference is the outdoor masking mandate?
So you think the difference is the outdoor masking mandate?
No I think the difference is when people take it serious, they generally tend to do better in handling this virus.
No I think the difference is when people take it serious, they generally tend to do better in handling this virus.
Agreed NY and NJ did NOT take this seriously
Lol they can't self reflect. They can't grow. They just double down.
Oddly comforting
I'm happy to remind you.
My take was that this is a virus that is going to do it's thing. And no amount of intervention was going to substantially change it. It's why you see Texas and California with same results. It's why you see better outcomes in places like Florida.
As the Hopkins study showed, the lockdowns did literally nothing. There are still a million people dead. The vaccines have not stopped anything.
Honestly dude I really can't comprehend how in Feb 22 you still hold these opinions. How stupid are you, actually? I can't fathom this level of stupidity in humans when the information is right in front of your face.
Your governor murdered people, cancelled the bill of rights, shut down your state, crushed your economy, ****ed over children, cancelled funerals and churches...
And still had disastrous outcomes. Some of the worst in the nation. You should be embarrassed for supporting it at every turn
"Sure a “Herby, Jonung, and Hanke working paper” may not sound quite the same as a “Johns Hopkins study.” But in this case, the former would be a whole lot more accurate description than the latter."
Hahah - guy sounded like a jilted lover.
USE OUR bull**** studies instead!
This writer, Bruce Y Lee, has also stated in the past that the virus is naturally occurring and that the lab theory is a conspiracy theory. Safe to say he can be ignored.
Hahah - guy sounded like a jilted lover.
USE OUR bull**** studies instead!
Moreover, Maher didn’t clarify that the three authors were economists rather than medical, epidemiology, or public health experts. Isn’t that a bit like three proctologists telling you how the economy is doing? It’s not clear how much economists alone would understand the complexities and subtleties of medicine and public health.
—————
That’s a clown quote. Of course we should have economists weighing in - the whole point is we need to be evaluating costs and benefits of interventions.
[tw]1491996868829614081[/tw]
It was always child abuse
The bootlickers should read this thread to understand how far the governments boot is down their throat
[Tw]1491929832527208449[/tw]