Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by myrmidon 749 days ago
> The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people.

No. To establish that "Fauci killed lots of people" you would have to show that cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for (=> difficult because you lack a good baseline). This report most definitely does NOT show that.

Then, to have an actual case, you would also have to show that those decisions were made in a manner criminally neglecting facts known at the time (=> not 4 years later!).
1 comments
admissionsguy 749 days ago
> cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for

Ethically, it is enough to show that his policies killed people. I cannot go into a tobacco factory, kill the night guard, burn the factory to the ground and expect recognition for saving lives. So starting from the position that unjust things were done during COVID, it is now the time to investigate what specific laws were breached, so that justice can be sought. Hence the slogan 'arrest Fauci'.

The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions? There is also a large number of contemporary warnings regarding the effect of lockdowns on diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.

link
myrmidon 749 days ago
> The report mentions excess death from non-COVID causes. Is it disputable that these were due to non-pharmaceutical interventions?

From what I can see the article makes no effort to separate Covid related excess mortality from direct or indirectly covid related, which would be crucial to support your argument.

Consider e.g.: - Death by delayed/cancelled medical procedures/diagnostics (because healthcare was busy with people dying from covid at the time) - Weaker immune system because of lack of exposure during/after covid

If your hypothesis is "by ignoring covid and skipping lockdowns we could have avoided this excess mortality" then that hypothesis is quite contrarian in first place AND not supported by the facts presented in the article.

link