The trouble is they are not explaining how those harms should have affected policy. The clear implication is that they should have led to less lockdown and 'less' policy, but that is really not logically true necessarily.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What was done, in practice, by people associated with GBD, to protect the vulnerable? Not declarations or guidelines but something that really saved lives of the vulnerable or made lives of orphans and double orphans better.
-
And what could they have done? They were slandered, censored and vilified at every turn. Look what happened to the most unbiased pro-science advisor in the world-Scott Atlas MD. Notice how every single one of his now one year old statements are now being implemented
#FactsMatter - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
.
@MarkChangizi examines the collateral damage of lockdowns. My view? I do NOT fault scientists/policy-makers for being wrong. I DO fault them for suppressing divergent voices & a "catastrophic misapplication of the precautionary principle." Both r linked.https://twitter.com/MarkChangizi/status/1356666866954035200 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Important work!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Assessing the damage is a good first step before accountability. Without a plan for the latter, society will not be whole again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.