An increasing number of actual scientific analyses are emerging on coronavirus infection. There is so much information out that it is quite confusing. The trend my little brain is seeing is raising substantive questions about the official narrative we’ve been told.
Articles for you to consider today:
- Do your own research.
- Researchers run meta-study and find minimal spread from asymptomatic or presymptomatic people.
- Comparing 10 countries with lockdowns to 2 without, researchers find no clear benefit from shutdowns.
- Florida is running only slightly more hospitalizations per capita in fall of 2020 than compared to the first quarter of 2018.
- Researchers find no benefit from masks in Florida counties which require masks compared to counties without such mandates.
- Lockdowns come with horrible side effects. We can expect an additional 900,000 excess deaths over the next decade and a half because of the extreme unemployment of the last 10 months.
Do your own research. – Don’t want to believe actual science published by someone else? Resources are available to do your own research.
For starters, check out the CDC website CDC COVID Data Tracker. That page has data for each state including total cases and cases in last seven days. It also has tallies per 100,000 people, including cases/100k, deaths/100k, seven-day-cases/100k.
Pull some data, do a bunch of calculations, and think for yourself.
I’ve pulled data from that CDC site and have done some graphing. I’m struggling to see any beneficial correlation between infection rates in relation to mask mandates & shutdowns.
For example, Texas and Florida with light restrictions and requirements have about the same cumulative infections per 100K and deaths per 100K as do California and New York with strong restrictions and requirements. Currently, New York and California are experiencing far higher infection rates than Texas or Florida.
12/22/20 – Alachua Chronicle – University of Florida researchers find no asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread – Four researchers did a meta-study of 54 studies. They looked at secondary spread within households.