More people who hate the government and the health care system SHOULD stop getting treated. We could start another category
About that data. Data without varifiable sources unless you pay for them? Naw! Your Web search for data will often land on statista.com. Unless you’re a member, though, the data will be missing the source — which makes it worse than useless. Statista’s policies undermine the integrity of research and data and contribute to the flood of bad statistics and dubious surveys you read in media. Like many searches for survey and other statistics, this search lands on Statista. This is no coincidence — Statista’s visibility at the top of statistics searches is, I’m certain, a result of significant effort in search optimization on the part of the company. Hurrah! A cool bar chart. Just clip it and paste it into whatever you’re working on — or just cite a number — and you’re done, right? Or if you’re not quite that sloppy and are trying to do the right thing, maybe you put “Source: Statista” in whatever you’re working on. But the source is not actually Statista — Statista didn’t do the survey, it is just an aggregator. Somebody else did the study. If we want to judge the credibility, we need to know who conducted the research, when, and how. We can see from the box on the right that this data comes from a survey conducted in July of 2019 with 5,107 respondents. But who conducted it? Unless you are a paying subscriber of Statista, if you click on “Show sources information,” you hit a paywall that displays this message:
Even if we could find a group of people who could successfully rebuild society managed from the center, they'll eventually be replace with people like you.
Luckily, not fast enough for Democrats to prevail in the mid-term elections. Then we can put the Biden/Clinton/Obama criminals behind bars. "We would like to remind the audience to please not applaud...you're just wasting time"
Fact check: Studies show COVID-19 lockdowns have saved lives As many states enter a new wave of more stringent measures to limit the spread of COVID-19, users on social media have been sharing posts that question the purpose of so called “lockdowns”. Some posts falsely claim that these measures “don’t save lives”. This article examines some of the reasons why lockdowns have been called, and how effective they have been. An example of a lockdown-sceptic post circulating on social media ( here ) features the screenshot of an entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary on the word “lockdown”, which includes a definition that reads: “the confinement of prisoners to their cells for all or most of the day as a temporary security measure”. The image has an overlaid text that reads: “Never forget where the word LOCKDOWN comes from… A loving government isn’t trying to save you from COVID…it is using COVID to justify MARTIAL LAW” While this definition is indeed included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry here , the screenshot fails to show two further definitions. According to Merriam Webster, the term also stands for a “temporary condition” imposed by authorities, for example, during the outbreak of an epidemic disease, “in which people are require to stay in their homes and refrain from limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)”. An article by The Guardian delves into the evolution of the meaning of the word lockdown here . In April, Reuters debunked a similar claim that the U.S. coronavirus response was “slowly introducing” martial law and found it to be false ( here ) . LOCKDOWNS Reuters has reported on international studies that have determined that lockdowns potentially have saved millions of lives here . However, it is also true that some lockdown measures may have a direct impact on a person’s income and mental health. Further reading about short, mid and long-term effects of lockdowns are visible here . The World Health Organization (WHO) explains here that such measures can have “a profound negative impact on individuals, communities and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop”, something that according to the organization, disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. But evidence also suggest that stringent but temporary restrictions, could actually benefit the economic recovery because they reduce the spread of the disease. The International Monetary Fund, for example, determined here that while lockdowns “impose short-term costs” they may lead to “a faster economic recovery. The organization states that “by bringing infections under control, lockdowns may thus pave the way to a faster economic recovery as people feel more comfortable about resuming normal activities” ( bit.ly/2UXoIUy page 74). Reuters contacted two experts, Dr. Elizabeth Stuart, Associate Dean for Education at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ( here ) and Dr. Stuart Ray, infectious disease expert with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ( here ) . Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health. WHY LOCKDOWNS? Without a treatment or vaccine available, Stuart said, the world had to rely on “really core behavioral factors”, such as physical distancing, hands washing, wearing masks, that have been used as “effective ways” of preventing transmission of infectious diseases in the past. “They do help”, she said. Ray pointed to evidence ( here and here ) that has suggested that the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is mitigated by “progressively stringent measures”, such as stay-at-home orders.
that's why we voted the fool out. Unless those same incompetant dems stole the election and millions of conspirators are keeping a big secret. derp.
Joe, that is exactly what you constantly post. BTW, "verifiable". I do agree you vary from the facts, though.
Joe, how appropriate that you post this, and support my post, to wit: Really? Really? Building a silly convoluted position based on the use of the word lockdown? This is your weapon of reason?
Fauci controls $40 Billion of budget. He can get anyone to say whatever he wants. People are losing trust in the medical profession.
You just can't lock down a population...even if government had that power. You have to go to "Plan B".
I'm the last person that would give away my civil liberties to a tyrannical government. I'm also the last person that would spread a deadly virus around my country based on a mountain of misinformation. The prudent approach here is to be overly cautious and listen to the public health experts. Those who choose to ignore sound advice in favor of lunatic fringe conspiracy nonsense are no different than adolescents throwing a temper tantrum over their rights and ignoring their responsibilities.
