There is no way -- none whatsoever -- that any study or scientist or doctor could know what might have happened in the past.

So when the media try to retcon us into thinking that if we has just locked down even harder during COVID, we would've saved more lives.

There are so many variables in this, it's impossible to know how things would have played out. Especially now that we know masking and the vaccine were wholly ineffective.

Strict mask, vaccine rules could have saved as many as 250K lives, says new study https://t.co/0IBqP5WrY4

— The Hill (@thehill) July 26, 2024

Here's what they write:

Stricter COVID-19 restrictions could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the states that refused to institute them, though efforts to close nursing homes and schools likely caused more harm than good, a new study has found.

Between 118,000 and 248,000 more Americans would have survived the pandemic if all states had followed some restrictions practiced in Northeastern states, according to findings published Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

A sorely underused word.

And it's total bunkum.

They already admitted the social distances and mask use were not only made up on the spot, but clinically proven ineffective

You can't gas light us... we have the internet

— Real Rationalist (@aBESTway) July 26, 2024

Recommended

Advertisement

Also this. Social distancing was made up. The stupid little arrows on the grocery store floor didn't do a damn thing. This writer saw a woman freak out at another woman who wasn't 'following the arrows' and 'putting lives at risk' while shopping once.

This writer refused -- from the get go -- to walk in the direction of the arrows.

I guess arresting people for being the only one surfing at the beach wasn’t strict enough… 🤷‍♂️

Reason why I say people is because there were multiple people who went out at different times/dates to be the only person surfing.

— Jeff Caldwell, II (@jeff4liberty247) July 26, 2024

This writer believes that we didn't even see a fraction of the draconian policies they had in mind for us. She will always believe they had much, much worse in mind for us and that  they would've kept those restrictions for years if they could've gotten away with it.

“It worked for China.”
I don’t hat journalists enough.

— David Carter (@MrDavidCarter) July 26, 2024

China also welded people into their apartments.

As this writer said in the last paragraph, we have no idea how awful they wanted to get.

The study’s author has a doctorate in economics from UC Berkeley, sits like this, and is funded by exactly who you’d think https://t.co/sCRTAt08CJ pic.twitter.com/jS9hTz0XY7

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) July 26, 2024

But follow the science.

Or something.

They're still clinging to this bulls**t. https://t.co/GP3PoZPves

— The Only James Magelk (@TheMagelk) July 26, 2024

Clinging like crazy.

Businesses closed, people fired for not complying and you say it wasn't strict enough?
Baloney.
Effective drugs were stopped for a poisonous, untested "vaccine" that didn't work.
You need to sit down. https://t.co/tVqsCb4NUf

— Lt. Dick Dowling (@LtDickDowling) July 26, 2024

This entire story has a 'govern me harder, daddy' vibe to it.

So, the closing and enforcing of those closures, of small businesses and schools and the keeping of the public away from itself, wasn't strict enough??! https://t.co/K9SVEMKlnQ

— Sonja Sharp (@sonjarenasharp) July 26, 2024

The economist behind this study doesn't think so.