|
|
|
|
|
|
by argvargc
1606 days ago
|
|
|
No, I didn't. I said: > Here is a summary of over 400 studies demonstrating lockdowns are ineffective or harmful: You're welcome to present studies demonstrating the opposite, but even if you can find 400 of them (and I doubt you can), the best we'd have arrived at would be equal uncertainty either way. The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part. |
|
|
> Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at.
So which one is it? Are your studies useful, or can the results only be guessed at, and so what's the point of your 400 studies?
> The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part.
It's amazing that you tell other people this yet don't seem to understand it yourself.