> School closures worked well for preventing spread.
Show me the data.
And, at what cost? Was the juice worth the squeeze? ... How many teachers have you talked to lately? Because the universal consensus is that closures did serious damage, still being felt to this day.
And it's an undeniable fact, that conversation (among many others) was heavily suppressed. Researchers who raised it were shadow-banned from Twitter, Facebook etc. That's not science, it's authoritarian dogma from an unaccountable political class.
There were superior alternatives - putting air purifiers in classrooms would have been a big one. But we weren't permitted to even have that conversation.
> Vaccines actually solved the covid issue.
Or, basically everyone already got corona and now there's a level of herd immunity; like with every global pandemic ever. Did you see any data on this? Or are you 'trusting the science' which you haven't actually seen.
> Lockdowns did worked, actually.
Oh? So, you can point to countries where there were no lockdowns and they got torn apart, can you? ... Because researchers who have looked at that question say it isn't actually that clear [0].
The purpose of lockdowns was to slow the spread so that chronically underfunded and privatized healthcare systems wouldn't utterly collapse. Fair enough - but it wasn't presented that way, and investment in public health hasn't been improved since. Instead, most systems in the West seem stretched more than ever, while we have plenty of money for sending Israel bombs and weapons, or building concentration camps, or deporting people at ludicrous expense, etc.
... But that wasn't even what I was talking about - I was talking about how even questioning mandatory lockdowns was enough to make people lose their jobs, and get censored from mainstream and social media. It's not very scientific to censor scientists.
> there is no "both sides" on climate change. Republicans are actively trying to make it happen.
And Democrats pay lip service to stopping them, but don't seem very effective. And when something like Deepwater Horizon happens, or the DAPL protests, or support for fracking is an issue, where is the Dem leadership? Quietly backing the fossil fuel companies, every single time.
What's needed is radical change, immediately. That's the view of basically every scientist. Democrats pretend not to understand that. It's nowhere near good enough, and I see no reason to expect change; not the slightest glimmer of hope for what's necessary.
0 - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-th...