John Hopkins study found lockdowns had very little if any positive effect or COVID mortality

[Cooke 2,033]

25 minutes ago, jehurey said:

are you derailing your own thread, at this point.

 

so, you're entire supposed theory about a johns hopkins report..........that's all over with?

 

i love how you states a john hopkins report, but list two links that are not john hopkins, and the first one actually quotes something else but the headline doesn't match the actual quote.

If you want to read the 60 page report go ahead. I posted a summary 

[jehurey 3,276]

8 minutes ago, Cooke said:

If you want to read the 60 page report go ahead. I posted a summary 

No you didn't. You posted a misleading headline.

 

Which I already pointed out to the flaw of these "lockdowns" not being actual lockdowns, but half-assed ones that weren't uniformly enforced.

 

You tried to say "Lockdowns don't work, in principle."

 

Which is, of course..........NOT what this John Hopkins article concludes.

[Cooke 2,033]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No you didn't. You posted a misleading headline.

 

Which I already pointed out to the flaw of these "lockdowns" not being actual lockdowns, but half-assed ones that weren't uniformly enforced.

 

You tried to say "Lockdowns don't work, in principle."

 

Which is, of course..........NOT what this John Hopkins article concludes.

What of course do they conclude my fear friend jehurey? Do tell. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,276]

5 minutes ago, Cooke said:

What of course do they conclude my fear friend jehurey? Do tell. 

They conclude these half-assed lockdowns that didn't get enforced..............did not work.

 

That's what they concluded.

 

Which many people would've came to the same conclusion.

[Cooke 2,033]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

They conclude these half-assed lockdowns that didn't get enforced..............did not work.

 

That's what they concluded.

 

Which many people would've came to the same conclusion.

Um. That's what I said. Lol. 

[jehurey 3,276]

4 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Um. That's what I said. Lol. 

I love how you pretend to not read what I typed:

 

Quote

You tried to say "Lockdowns don't work, in principle."

 

Which is, of course..........NOT what this John Hopkins article concludes.

There's no point in trying to lie or change your story, your entire thread was created on trying to insinuate that.

 

Cuz I hardly doubt you were saying "The way we attempted these lockdowns didn't work, guys, they should've been much more stringent lockdowns"

 

Right?

[Cooke 2,033]

18 minutes ago, jehurey said:

I love how you pretend to not read what I typed:

 

There's no point in trying to lie or change your story, your entire thread was created on trying to insinuate that.

 

Cuz I hardly doubt you were saying "The way we attempted these lockdowns didn't work, guys, they should've been much more stringent lockdowns"

 

Right?

You don't remember me saying in the beginning we should do a complete short term lockdown rather than the half assed one we did? I said it several times man. All we ended up with was the same amount of transmission plus all the extra bullshit for 2 years. I'll try to dig up that thread if I can find it. You ridiculed me over it. 

[jehurey 3,276]

8 minutes ago, Cooke said:

You don't remember me saying in the beginning we should do a complete short term lockdown rather than the half assed one we did? I said it several times man. All we ended up with was the same amount of transmission plus all the extra bullshit for 2 years. I'll try to dig up that thread if I can find it. You ridiculed me over it. 

Let's see:

On 2022-02-02 at 3:54 PM, Cooke said:

Yeah well you didn't have to live in Canada all that time. Even now fully vaccinated could JUST go back to their gyms. Some colleges and universities are still doing online "learning".. Online is no substitute for in person. And the loss of those years for social interaction. The amount of small business that closed here is just crazy. Meanwhile overdose deaths dwarfed covid deaths and no one gave a shit. 

You don't say it here.

 

And infact downplay covid deaths.  Which basically means you are saying that doing ANYTHING regarding covid is basically overblown, in your eyes.

On 2022-02-03 at 6:45 AM, Cooke said:

I can't seem to find any sites that reported on this that you wohld deem acceptable 

 

We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” reads the paper , which is based on a review of 34 pre-existing COVID-19 studies.

 

'Given the “devastating effects” that lockdowns have caused, the authors recommended they be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

In both Europe and the United States, researchers found that a lockdown could only be expected to bring down mortality rates by 0.2 per cent “as compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations.” For context, 0.2 per cent of total Canadian COVID-19 fatalities thus far is equal to about 70 people.

The impact of border closures was found to be even less effective, with death rates only going down about 0.1 per cent.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/johns-hopkins-university-study-covid-19-lockdowns

 

 

You don't say it here, and actually continue to reiterate that lockdowns have NO effect whatsoever.

 

You provide no further nuance. You basically type it out as a full declaration of fact.

On 2022-02-07 at 8:30 PM, Cooke said:

 

See its this kind of stuff that really pisses me off. It was very rarely about health. It was about optics and politics. 

You don't say it here.

 

In fact, you say that attempting a lockdown is just about "optics and politics"

On 2022-02-08 at 12:08 AM, Cooke said:

Let's not play dumb here. 

 

It's an airborne virus. Barring a full and complete lockdown where no one leaves their home for weeks with zero contact of anyone else, doing a half assed lockdown has no effect. If people are still going to work, wearing useless cloth masks, taking a vaccine that doesn't stop the spread, etc etc. It's not going to work. An airborne virus doesn't give a shit about policies and politics. It's going to do what it's going to do, and that's spread until everyone one on earth becomes infected at some point. 

 

The best option was to focus protection on the most vulnerable, vaccinate them first, limit contact and let healthy people go on with their lives. We knew very early who covid was killing.. Yet as the pandemic dragged on more and more attention was focused on children, the absolute least vulnerable. Now they've had their lives and education fucked for over 2 years. Not seeing faces, online learning, stunted development etc. We did not follow the science, we followed paranoia, fear and populists policies. 

Ah, you finally say it here.

 

After

I

Pointed

It

Out

With

My

Post

 

So...............no you never really said it at all, you only finally acknowledged it when I pointed out the flaw of everything you had said thus far.

[Mr. Impossible 411]

On 2022-02-07 at 9:30 PM, Cooke said:

 

See its this kind of stuff that really pisses me off. It was very rarely about health. It was about optics and politics. 

I dont get it. 

[Cooke 2,033]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Impossible said:

I dont get it. 

One governor is literally trump for removing mask mandates, the other is praised a week later by the same network. Could it be based on one being a D and the other R?

[jehurey 3,276]

1 hour ago, Cooke said:

One governor is literally trump for removing mask mandates, the other is praised a week later by the same network. Could it be based on one being a D and the other R?

No.

 

You really are stupid.

 

One governor is removing mask mandates, and he's tentatively set it for a month from now, which means that he's basing it on the hope that the Omicron virus spread, as its being tracked, is going to reach a low spread right around the beginning of March.

 

The other is a governor BLOCKING local school districts from implementing mask mandates.  They are literally blocking schools from doing something that they feel is necessary to the safety of their children and staff, and to try and keep infections low or else they simply won't be able to keep the schools open.

 

Do you how stupid you are in order to get this one wrong?

[Mr. Impossible 411]

1 hour ago, Cooke said:

One governor is literally trump for removing mask mandates, the other is praised a week later by the same network. Could it be based on one being a D and the other R?

Oh, I figured that's what you got from it. To be fair, that's how it was set up for stupid sheep to think when they just scrolled through during their right-wing doom scrolling.

 

 

To start, they are two different states with two different situations. So like from jump this is just moron bait.

 

Secondly, one is directly quoting someone who was lifting mandates due to dropping numbers of infections in NJ. This wasn't commentary from MSNBC, this is what he said himself in his address. The other is a quote from a segment about Youngkin reversing his campaign promise to allow districts to dynamically decide how to issue mask mandates according to their COVID data spikes. Basically taking away their ability to scale their COVID responses just days after taking office. Hence the "backwards slip" commentary. It's the reason why several schools took to suing his office for this reversal. 

 

So one situation is adjusting a response but it doesn't bar district response, while the other basically states that it's up to the student or more likely their parents' choice to wear mask or not. 

 

I get it, It's MSNBC and your worm brain activated. This is why you guys are a joke. 

 

Hey, at least he banned CRT from being taught schools that weren't ever teaching or planning to begin with, so it's still a win for your team. 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Scrolling through this guys tweeter feed is almost a road map for everything Cucke talks about. It's just this guys complaining about Democrats all day, talking about China, and lab vs wet market stuff. You literally just think what these people toss up in tweets. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Mr. Impossible

[Mr. Impossible 411]

Where did @Cooke go? 

[Cooke 2,033]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mask-mandates-didnt-make-much-of-a-difference-anyway/2022/02/11/57760db6-8b3b-11ec-838f-0cfdf69cce3c_story.html

[Mr. Impossible 411]

On 2022-02-11 at 4:14 PM, Cooke said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mask-mandates-didnt-make-much-of-a-difference-anyway/2022/02/11/57760db6-8b3b-11ec-838f-0cfdf69cce3c_story.html

 

Lol another article you didn't read. Nice dodge on your stupid CNN take down. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Mr. Impossible

[Cooke 2,033]

Fucking lol

[jehurey 3,276]

On 2022-02-20 at 7:15 PM, Cooke said:

Fucking lol

you are absolutely right, fucking LOL

 

you just attempted to post that discredited lying doctor again for the third time.

 

I knew I remembered that name

 

You had already attempted to use her before, and I've caught her straight up lying and YOU lying about her credentials:

 

On 2021-09-09 at 1:00 PM, jehurey said:

Corresponding Author email: tracybethhoeg@gmail.com

 

Sounds like an official Yale study...........especially considering Tracy Beth Hoeg never went there, according to her own LinkedIn.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracy-beth-høeg-60129a90

 

 

•  

 

On 2021-09-09 at 2:17 PM, jehurey said:

So you knew you were lying when you said that this was a Yale study?

 

is that what you are saying?

 

And how are they getting "the data"..........a person making a report with a GMAIL ADDRESS as their contact information.............is going around vaccinating children between the ages of 12 to 17?????

 

 

Fucking LOL, indeed

 

What a shitty chart, as well.

 

About 10 people replied to her graph and asked for the source of her data.........and she never replied.

 

Your dumbass has attempted to use this discredited doctor THREE TIMES ALREADY.

 

I wonder if you're stupid enough to try it a fourth time a few months from now.

[Cooke 2,033]

6 hours ago, jehurey said:

you are absolutely right, fucking LOL

 

you just attempted to post that discredited lying doctor again for the third time.

 

I knew I remembered that name

 

You had already attempted to use her before, and I've caught her straight up lying and YOU lying about her credentials:

 

 

Fucking LOL, indeed

 

What a shitty chart, as well.

 

About 10 people replied to her graph and asked for the source of her data.........and she never replied.

 

Your dumbass has attempted to use this discredited doctor THREE TIMES ALREADY.

 

I wonder if you're stupid enough to try it a fourth time a few months from now.

Nothing you said in this ridiculous post with giant text and emojis discredited anything. 

 

The data is not hard to find yourself you silly small little man.  We know what states had mask mandates, we know death rates and case counts are posted by the CDC.  This "discredited" doctor has nothing to do with it. Who discredited her? Dr jehurey? Lol. Fool

[Cooke 2,033]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/25/lockdowns-not-necessary-defensible-says-head-inquiry-swedens/

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,276]

On 2022-02-24 at 7:49 AM, Cooke said:

Nothing you said in this ridiculous post with giant text and emojis discredited anything. 

 

The data is not hard to find yourself you silly small little man.

ok, so post the data.

 

that discredited doctor was asked several times in her twitter thread, and she didn't answer.

 

so go ahead and provide me where the data is at.

 

Here, let me explain the basics of her "data"

 

She's comparing states that "Have Mask Mandates"

 

And States that "Do not Have Mask mandates"

 

So clearly I sure would like to see what states she is classifying as "having" and which states she is classifying as "not having"

 

And I'd like to see the infection numbers, and where she got those.

Edited February 26, 2022 by jehurey