Even the WHO no longer recommends lockdowns, because of the massive harms that they have caused: "WHO warns against COVID-19 lockdowns due to economic damage... “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said... Tedros had urged countries to bolster other measures, including widespread testing and contact tracing, so they could safely reopen and avoid future lockdowns. “We need to reach a sustainable situation where we have adequate control of this virus without shutting down our lives entirely, or lurching from lockdown to lockdown — which has a hugely detrimental impact on societies,” he said." https://nypost.com/2020/10/11/who-warns-against-covid-19-lockdowns-due-to-economic-damage/
There was never any "science" behind the lockdowns. As we are seeing in China, they are still locking down, despite the media cheerleading how they "beat" the virus with strict lockdowns. It was absolute propaganda nonsense. Any scanning for news articles reveals that they were continuously locking down, but they rebranded them as "wartime measures".
The real purpose of lockdowns was economic warfare. As part of the Great Reset agenda.
So how do people get infected with COVID if they're not near each other, genius? Immaculate infection? LMAO.
And imagine thinking that the media is cheerleading for China. The media don't have enough bad things to say about China, despite the vast majority of those commenting never having been there. They literally have HUNDREDS of times fewer COVID deaths than the US, despite being 4 times bigger.
That pretty much says it all that you're citing the Brownstain Institute and New York Post as sources.
Hey genius, lockdowns haven't stopped the spread of the virus, if you haven't noticed.
So let me get this straight, if the Brownstone cites peer-reviewed articles, they are no longer credible because the Brownstone cited them? And when someone quotes the words of the WHO, they suddenly lose validity because a newspaper you disagree with quoted them? I could have cited numerous sources that had the quotes from the WHO. Is that your actual argument here?
You are a lost cause, because you have abandoned any pretense of using critical thinking skills.
And of course, you failed to cite a single peer-reviewed paper on the success of lockdowns.
There aren't any. ZERO.
So basically your argument is you have no evidence, but you will use ad hominem attacks to dismiss evidence. That's why you are completely clueless here.
The evidence for lockdowns was propaganda. It was all smoke and mirrors. It has zero basis in science. No pandemic has ever been solved by forcing people to never leave their homes. And the WHO no longer recommends lockdowns as a primary strategy. Because they cause massive economic and other harms.
It's no good if you survive a virus but die of starvation.
LMAO, I looked at your stupid article just now, and clicked on a few of the links. Shocker, many of them are opinion pieces, not empirical studies or peer-reviewed journal articles, and a lot of them aren't even about lockdowns. I'm not sure if you just didn't bother to look at the article you cited yourself or are just lying. Don't really care.
Cherry-picking?
Here's a summary of hundreds of peer reviewed studies on lockdowns... https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-interventions/
Even the WHO no longer recommends lockdowns, because of the massive harms that they have caused: "WHO warns against COVID-19 lockdowns due to economic damage... “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said... Tedros had urged countries to bolster other measures, including widespread testing and contact tracing, so they could safely reopen and avoid future lockdowns. “We need to reach a sustainable situation where we have adequate control of this virus without shutting down our lives entirely, or lurching from lockdown to lockdown — which has a hugely detrimental impact on societies,” he said." https://nypost.com/2020/10/11/who-warns-against-covid-19-lockdowns-due-to-economic-damage/
There was never any "science" behind the lockdowns. As we are seeing in China, they are still locking down, despite the media cheerleading how they "beat" the virus with strict lockdowns. It was absolute propaganda nonsense. Any scanning for news articles reveals that they were continuously locking down, but they rebranded them as "wartime measures".
The real purpose of lockdowns was economic warfare. As part of the Great Reset agenda.
So how do people get infected with COVID if they're not near each other, genius? Immaculate infection? LMAO.
And imagine thinking that the media is cheerleading for China. The media don't have enough bad things to say about China, despite the vast majority of those commenting never having been there. They literally have HUNDREDS of times fewer COVID deaths than the US, despite being 4 times bigger.
That pretty much says it all that you're citing the Brownstain Institute and New York Post as sources.
Hey genius, lockdowns haven't stopped the spread of the virus, if you haven't noticed.
So let me get this straight, if the Brownstone cites peer-reviewed articles, they are no longer credible because the Brownstone cited them? And when someone quotes the words of the WHO, they suddenly lose validity because a newspaper you disagree with quoted them? I could have cited numerous sources that had the quotes from the WHO. Is that your actual argument here?
You are a lost cause, because you have abandoned any pretense of using critical thinking skills.
And of course, you failed to cite a single peer-reviewed paper on the success of lockdowns.
There aren't any. ZERO.
So basically your argument is you have no evidence, but you will use ad hominem attacks to dismiss evidence. That's why you are completely clueless here.
The evidence for lockdowns was propaganda. It was all smoke and mirrors. It has zero basis in science. No pandemic has ever been solved by forcing people to never leave their homes. And the WHO no longer recommends lockdowns as a primary strategy. Because they cause massive economic and other harms.
It's no good if you survive a virus but die of starvation.
Also, you didn't answer my question: How do people get infected with a disease unless they're near someone who has it? Of course, they can't be.
Hey genius, I cited dozens of peer-reviewed studies. You didn't even read the piece you're responding to. Get lost.
LMAO, I looked at your stupid article just now, and clicked on a few of the links. Shocker, many of them are opinion pieces, not empirical studies or peer-reviewed journal articles, and a lot of them aren't even about lockdowns. I'm not sure if you just didn't bother to look at the article you cited yourself or are just lying. Don't really care.