Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
The Chinese communist party propaganda outlet based in America called the New York Times are now informing us we are stupid for doing lockdowns, there is no scientific evidence guys that lockdowns work stupid....... I’m just joking about the CCP propaganda outlet, we all know they are a propaganda outlet for anyone that will pay enough.
It’s also a subtle puff piece for the WHO, it’s not their fault is the angle, of course we know the WHO and their commie leader tedros was/is in bed with CCP and the like of Bill Gates.
The article does say the above but in a verbose vague way, most joe public’s will drift off into lala land while reading it which is the desired effect I’m sure, it certainly doesn’t have the impact of previous weeks articles and headlines which included images of mass graves and front pages filled with the names of those who died "from" covid or is that "with" covid? I expect another subtle vague article about death categorizations soon....
There is plenty of emotional rhetoric with human interest stories as is the norm with MSM and the “experts” because data may highlight the truth and must be avoided. We need "new globalization" is the message, fits right in with digital ID’s and technocratic agenda.
It’s also the beginning of a subtle narrative to attack trump, trump called for border closures and travel restrictions, as the public loose jobs they will be angry, the media will blame trump for travel restrictions and lockdowns, this is what caused the economic downturn. Americans are no longer welcome across the world according to the NYT(CCP)
The media is seriously psychotic and compromised, it’s no surprise they pull this when we look at the general angle of that paper , they are mentally deranged and it’s glaringly obvious, prescription pills are great for suppressing the reality you are murmuring relentless contradictions.
Incidentally they pull the same trick with Jeffrey Epstein articles, vague and verbose, look over here but not there, it’s all trump, don’t mention the intelligence organizations or big banks facilitating Epstein.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/ski-party-pandemic-travel-coronavirus.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
"The World Health Organization said open borders would help fight disease. Experts, and a global treaty, emphatically agreed. But the scientific evidence was never behind them.
When the coronavirus emerged in China in January, the World Health Organization didn’t flinch in its advice: Do not restrict travel.
But what is now clear is that the policy was about politics and economics more than public health.
Public health records, scores of scientific studies and interviews with more than two dozen experts show the policy of unobstructed travel was never based on hard science. It was a political decision, recast as health advice, which emerged after a plague outbreak in India in the 1990s. By the time Covid-19 surfaced, it had become an article of faith.
“It’s part of the religion of global health: Travel and trade restrictions are bad,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University who helped write the global rules known as the International Health Regulations. “I’m one of the congregants.”
Covid-19 has shattered that faith. Before the pandemic, a few studies had demonstrated that travel restrictions delayed, but did not stop, the spread of SARS, pandemic flu and Ebola. Most, however, were based on mathematical models. No one had collected real-world data. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the latest coronavirus is still not understood.
“Anyone who is truthful is going to tell you it’s a big fat ‘We don’t know,’” said Prof. Keiji Fukuda, a former senior World Health Organization official who teaches at the University of Hong Kong.
The restrictions have humbled powerful nations like the United States, whose citizens are no longer welcome across most of the world. Even so, President Trump has called his travel restrictions “the biggest decision we made so far” and attacked the W.H.O.’s early advice on borders as “disastrous.”
"Still, it is too soon to know, based on data and hard science, how much travel restrictions help, and if they do, which restrictions help most. Experts who had defended open borders at the start of the pandemic now say countries should use judicious travel measures. The W.H.O. now calls for a gradual reopening in which each country weighs its own risks"
(The above paragraph highlighting the incoherency of the article in general)
This time, the process was swift. In 2005, diplomats struck a compromise intended to balance public health needs with the economic consequences of “unnecessary interference” with travel and trade. While the new rules did not explicitly prohibit countries from closing borders or restricting trade, they made it clear that doing so should be a last resort.
But the rules were never based on a scientific body of evidence. There were reasonable assumptions — closed borders could slow the arrival of medicine and aid workers, for example. Yet, no one studied whether restricting travel might slow a fast-spreading disease, partly because there was no tradition of collecting data on such interventions.
(I thought the tradition of science was collecting data/evidence?)
“We didn’t think we needed to measure them because we thought we knew,” said Professor Gostin, the Georgetown expert, who was involved in the revision process. “Clearly, we didn’t.”
(Says an "expert")
As scientists worldwide race to make a vaccine, understanding the role of travel in a pandemic — and what types of restrictions could prove effective — is also critical, if likely to take much longer. This month, the W.H.O. began another review of the international health regulations.
( The WHO need to banned, they are accountable to their diners like bill gates not the taxpayer)
Dr. Heymann, who helped shape the last revision, acknowledges that the current regulations “are not fit for purpose on travel and trade.”
“More and more,” Dr. Heymann said, “we’re understanding that there are some times when travel and trade might need to be restricted.”
Still, experts like Professor Gostin at Georgetown University fear that in the absence of data, the world will overcorrect — only to find during the next pandemic that new restrictions have slowed access to medicine, delayed rescue workers and needlessly damaged fragile economies.
“If we’re going to make choices that affect the world so profoundly, we need to understand if it works,” he said. “Otherwise we’re just flying blind.”
It’s also a subtle puff piece for the WHO, it’s not their fault is the angle, of course we know the WHO and their commie leader tedros was/is in bed with CCP and the like of Bill Gates.
The article does say the above but in a verbose vague way, most joe public’s will drift off into lala land while reading it which is the desired effect I’m sure, it certainly doesn’t have the impact of previous weeks articles and headlines which included images of mass graves and front pages filled with the names of those who died "from" covid or is that "with" covid? I expect another subtle vague article about death categorizations soon....
There is plenty of emotional rhetoric with human interest stories as is the norm with MSM and the “experts” because data may highlight the truth and must be avoided. We need "new globalization" is the message, fits right in with digital ID’s and technocratic agenda.
It’s also the beginning of a subtle narrative to attack trump, trump called for border closures and travel restrictions, as the public loose jobs they will be angry, the media will blame trump for travel restrictions and lockdowns, this is what caused the economic downturn. Americans are no longer welcome across the world according to the NYT(CCP)
The media is seriously psychotic and compromised, it’s no surprise they pull this when we look at the general angle of that paper , they are mentally deranged and it’s glaringly obvious, prescription pills are great for suppressing the reality you are murmuring relentless contradictions.
Incidentally they pull the same trick with Jeffrey Epstein articles, vague and verbose, look over here but not there, it’s all trump, don’t mention the intelligence organizations or big banks facilitating Epstein.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/ski-party-pandemic-travel-coronavirus.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
"The World Health Organization said open borders would help fight disease. Experts, and a global treaty, emphatically agreed. But the scientific evidence was never behind them.
When the coronavirus emerged in China in January, the World Health Organization didn’t flinch in its advice: Do not restrict travel.
But what is now clear is that the policy was about politics and economics more than public health.
Public health records, scores of scientific studies and interviews with more than two dozen experts show the policy of unobstructed travel was never based on hard science. It was a political decision, recast as health advice, which emerged after a plague outbreak in India in the 1990s. By the time Covid-19 surfaced, it had become an article of faith.
“It’s part of the religion of global health: Travel and trade restrictions are bad,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University who helped write the global rules known as the International Health Regulations. “I’m one of the congregants.”
Covid-19 has shattered that faith. Before the pandemic, a few studies had demonstrated that travel restrictions delayed, but did not stop, the spread of SARS, pandemic flu and Ebola. Most, however, were based on mathematical models. No one had collected real-world data. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the latest coronavirus is still not understood.
“Anyone who is truthful is going to tell you it’s a big fat ‘We don’t know,’” said Prof. Keiji Fukuda, a former senior World Health Organization official who teaches at the University of Hong Kong.
The restrictions have humbled powerful nations like the United States, whose citizens are no longer welcome across most of the world. Even so, President Trump has called his travel restrictions “the biggest decision we made so far” and attacked the W.H.O.’s early advice on borders as “disastrous.”
"Still, it is too soon to know, based on data and hard science, how much travel restrictions help, and if they do, which restrictions help most. Experts who had defended open borders at the start of the pandemic now say countries should use judicious travel measures. The W.H.O. now calls for a gradual reopening in which each country weighs its own risks"
(The above paragraph highlighting the incoherency of the article in general)
This time, the process was swift. In 2005, diplomats struck a compromise intended to balance public health needs with the economic consequences of “unnecessary interference” with travel and trade. While the new rules did not explicitly prohibit countries from closing borders or restricting trade, they made it clear that doing so should be a last resort.
But the rules were never based on a scientific body of evidence. There were reasonable assumptions — closed borders could slow the arrival of medicine and aid workers, for example. Yet, no one studied whether restricting travel might slow a fast-spreading disease, partly because there was no tradition of collecting data on such interventions.
(I thought the tradition of science was collecting data/evidence?)
“We didn’t think we needed to measure them because we thought we knew,” said Professor Gostin, the Georgetown expert, who was involved in the revision process. “Clearly, we didn’t.”
(Says an "expert"
)As scientists worldwide race to make a vaccine, understanding the role of travel in a pandemic — and what types of restrictions could prove effective — is also critical, if likely to take much longer. This month, the W.H.O. began another review of the international health regulations.
( The WHO need to banned, they are accountable to their diners like bill gates not the taxpayer)
Dr. Heymann, who helped shape the last revision, acknowledges that the current regulations “are not fit for purpose on travel and trade.”
“More and more,” Dr. Heymann said, “we’re understanding that there are some times when travel and trade might need to be restricted.”
Still, experts like Professor Gostin at Georgetown University fear that in the absence of data, the world will overcorrect — only to find during the next pandemic that new restrictions have slowed access to medicine, delayed rescue workers and needlessly damaged fragile economies.
“If we’re going to make choices that affect the world so profoundly, we need to understand if it works,” he said. “Otherwise we’re just flying blind.”
