1/ Thoughts:
- still probably better for at-risk
- kids’ super-power is their immune systems (esp for CoV2). If vax may lessen this, w/no clinical benefit…?
- shows yet another problem w/mandates: create strong incentive to sweep all issues under the rug
3/ This is why choice is so important. If people make their own choices, grappling w/the risks of incomplete information is on them. When coerced, the burden is on those who make the choice for them. If those people may be wrong, they tend not to be overly inclined to admit it.
4/ Devolving decisions to individuals creates a virtuous cycle, of question and reply.
Revoking it creates a vicious cycle of desire Not-to-know, denial, shut down, shout down, and then cover up.
5/ If you or I make the wrong choice the impact is limited to us and our circles.
When someone in power makes the wrong choice & imposes it on all of us, they can break the world.
The additional damage they cause trying to avoid blame, will be in proportion to their power.
6/
This is true of masks as well (and all coercion).
6/ Lastly, if you want leaders that believe in the virtuous cycle of personal freedom and agency, rather than the vicious cycle of coercion please support my campaign w/a donation or sharing my campaign video.
1/ What we are currently suffering, is a pandemic of the unelected.
There is no off-ramp for any of these restrictions—and they all know it.
Because the problem is political, the solution must also be. So I'm running for congress.
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
2/ This is my call to Team Reality. Politicians, the media, the only thing they pay attention to is $$. If they see $$ flooding an anti-mandate, pro-liberty candidate in Rochelle Walensky’s back yard, they WILL pay attention. emilyburns.vote
3/ No one believes this has cross-party appeal, that you can use it to capture the middle. They think it's a Twitter phenomenon. Like it or not, the ONLY way to show them it’s real, is with money. I’ve contributed $250K of my money to this. emilyburns.vote
1/ Just looked @ CDC's AZ school-mask study. What a load of garbage. Here’s why:
-No info on actual # of cases, or # of kids in school
-No info on testing levels
-52% of schools WITH mask reqs were small (<850) vs. 13% in No-Mask Schools
-Case rates 2.4x in no-Mask Areas
2/ When numbers are missing, it tells you something. The key number here SHOULD be, number of cases/child. That they chose outbreaks instead is...fishy. That 52% of masked schools were small, vs. 13% of un-masked, is important. Fewer kids in schools = Outbreak less likely.
3/ It's kind of amazing they needed to do this. The CDC basically set its "close contact" rules for schools to "prove" masks work.
In situations where both kids are masked, a masked contact DOESN'T count as a contact, AND THUS DOESN'T NEED TO BE TESTED. cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
3/ This applies to hospitalizations, too. And one must also remember than in May, the CDC told hospitals to stop testing fully-vaxed people, unless there explicitly FOR COVID.
3/ I do think that the mask mandates are being kept in place to ⬆️ child vax uptake. B/c cdc knows parents want kids unmasked, is this supposedly benign intervention to encourage a better future outcome causing them to be willfully blind to potential harms?
1/ The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true...
But even this finding is questionable. Let's explore.
2/2/
What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting. Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
3/ Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
1/ Trying to mask the abject failure of blue state COVID responses, a new success metric has been rolled out: Vax levels. But whole pop. vax levels, mask much lower variance in at-risk groups. What's more, deaths in 65+ from Jan-Jun are NOT linked to vax levels.
2/
Some will say that the vaccination level of the population is important b/c those other vaccinations are shielding the at-risk further. But excess deaths since January are NOT tied to higher levels of whole population vaccination.
4/ The push to vax well beyond the at-risk represents another installment of “following the science” where sadly, fealty to “the science” does not produce any measurable result. This new metric—whole pop. Vax—is designed to wash away all the other failures docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…