The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

"With each passing week, new evidence — actual, real scientific evidence based on the scientific method and not the conjecture of overpaid government Public Health™ bureaucrats — surfaces debunking some aspect of the COVID-19 response, whether it’s the futility of masking, the inefficacy of vaccines, or the counterproductivity of lockdowns....to assess the merits of masking, vaccines, and lockdowns, respectively, the researchers analyzed data from a number of U.S. jurisdictions with varying levels of vaccine uptake, lockdown measures, mask mandates, etc. to compare infection rates and death rates.
"

If only johnflubs wasn't so easily duped by Right Wing extremists it would save everyone a lot of time.

So johnny, when are you going to post some of these "actual, real science" studies that you claim exist? As you know, there were no studies included in the propaganda source you quoted.

Please direct us all to the relevant peer-reviewed articles in reputable medical publications or University research publications where these studies are allegedly published. The publication titles of these studies and where they were published will suffice if you can't figure out how to post a link to them directly. Failure on your part to produce any of these phony studies will be taken as an admission that you were simply lying to us about them.

All the scientific studies I could find from reputable sources concluded just the opposite of your foolishness.

Thank you in advance.

You are most welcome in advance.

Mr Forbes -- or, more particularly, his stalwart staff -- strive daily to stay abreast of real science.

Real science is skeptical, and welcomes new data, and is not censorious.

There apparently was no science whatever to support use of non-N95 masks.

And no science at all behind the oft-stated 6 feet of social distance.

Yes, johnny, we are still waiting for you to post some science.

Any time would be fine.

What? You haven't actually GOT any science to support your purely partisan propaganda assertions?


That's what I thought. As always, you've got nothin'.

There was no science apparently behind 6 feet of social distance. It was apparently just made up.

Lockdowns in theory made some sense -- stop groups from congregating and spreading virus.

But lockdowns did harm first -- a violation of the sane dictum of Hippocrates.

And, even now, is there any evidence at all that lockdowns were worth the lost jobs, the stimulus bills after with money-printing which itself precipitated inflation?

The game was not worth the candle, and now a lot of kids lost two years of education and will end up as uneducated as Clown.

^^^^^^ As we see, johnforbes STILL hasn't produced a shred of science to support his lies. He hasn't because he can't.

Dishonestjohn is unable to post a link to, or an attributed quotation from, any reputable scientific study that concluded anything to support his partisan claims.

On the other hand, more than once I have posted links to studies comparing mortality rates and economic impact on the various Scandinavian countries that had lockdowns and didn't have lockdowns.

These studies all showed johnforbes is lying about his claims again. If he isn't allowed to make up stupid shit, he has nothing to post.

Mr Forbes, for all his many and various virtues, was not a doctor, not aa scientist, not a CDC employee.

Scientists were the people who should have had evidence to support 6 feet of social distance.

In "Of the Epidemics" (quite relevant), Hippocrates said "First do no harm," but lockdowns did harm first.

"Mr Forbes, for all his many and various virtues, was not a doctor, not aa scientist, not a CDC employee."-johnflubs

And that is why you should simply shut up and follow the science and recommendations of public health authorities instead of making up unsupported stupid shit, johnny. If your handlers didn't give you a link to studies that back up your idiotic claims, you should tell them to go fuck themselves.

It's the same reason I tell YOU to go fuck yourself, dummy: you haven't offered a shred of scientific evidence to support your thesis that "lockdowns produced no good results" when in fact they did. You are the textbook case of "all hat, no cattle."


"Scientists were the people who should have had evidence to support 6 feet of social distance."-johnfoibles

johnny, the "6' of distance" was supported by decades of treatment of other air born diseases. COVID-19 was an unknown at the time. So the recommendation of 6' distancing which was effective against some previous air born diseases was prudently put in place before there was time to do studies specifically on COVID-19. It was the only responsible thing to do until there was science to support something else. Once scientific studies were done, the distancing was reduced, but not eliminated. (Whiny johnforbes is actually here quibbling over a 3' difference in recommended distancing which scientific studies did support.) Why is Hypocritejohnny even bitching about it?

Regardless, the 6' distancing is irrelevant because it cost nothing, it harmed no one, and it kept johnforbes from sidling up against young boys in crowds to indulge his frottage proclivity. It in no way indicts public health policies based on earlier best practices until new studies could be done.

And believe it or not, Hippocrates is not the last word on 21st century medical best practices, dimwit. He's just some guy who came up with a memorable line 2000 years ago that even a dimwit like you could remember and regurgitate without any understanding. At some point every doctor first does some harm in order to save the lives of their patients. This can include cutting out vital organs before replacing them with others, poisoning and sickening cancer patients, and using damaging doses of radiation to destroy bodily tissues. These things are what doctors do 'first' in order to save the greatest numbers of lives.

Lockdowns may have done some small harm somewhere in order to save millions of lives and prevent the collapse of health care systems and medical personnel around the world, as well as to slow the pace of the pandemic in order to give researchers time to produce vaccines. They did that, mildly inconveniencing johnforbes so that they could save millions.

What johnforbes needs to do is get his priorities straight and stop looking only at his childish and simplistic "Weltbild" and instead look at the bigger picture, which is what global public health authorities did.

Someday johnforbes will realize we live in a real world where prudent decisions must sometimes be made before sufficient facts are known about a new threat; before there is time for scientific studies to be completed, as was the case of COVID-19.

The authorities were -- sad to say -- not supported by science.

Dogma is not science.

Science welcomes new data, and does not admonish skeptics to "shut up."

So produce this made up "new data" you claim supports your idiotic thread title.

You haven't got any, so you desperately glom onto this irrelevant "6' separation" nonsense that harmed no one and cost nothing. It wasn't even enforced.

And skeptics are only told to "shut up" when they lie repeatedly and have nothing to support their incessant yammering. (The way you have done for years.)

Mr Forbes does indeed follow the science, and where it might lead depends on data.

There apparently was no science to support mask use unless N95 quality, and no science at all behind 6 feet.

Lockdowns were bothersome all along because they might just delay herd immunity.

Yea, johnny, we all see that you STILL haven't produced even a shred of scientific data to back up your partisan yammering.

Nobody cares about all the things you DON'T know, dimwit. We don't have time to even begin to plumb the depths of that immense void.

How many more of those irrelevant and completely unscientific posts are you going to make in order to further humiliate yourself?

Mr Forbes has many obvious virtues, including his humility.

But he is not a scientist, so he merely follows the science.

Yes, wildfires have created smoky air along the East Coast and perhaps an argument today could be made for wearing masks.

But non-N95-quality masks apparently had no scientific basis.