I've been listening to the podcast No Agenda recently. The podcast is of a conservative, deplorable, dissident right bent and it plays clips of liberal progressive saying things about current affairs. This was Rush Limbaugh's schtick and he was especially hated by the liberal progressives for it. They could never find a foil for it.
A clip I heard recently on the No Agenda podcast was some Canadian female Federal Health Minister's response to a question about why some particular covid measure — an app — was still in place. She responded by avoiding the question first with blather (Canadians are so quiet and humble, blah, blah, blah) and then quoting some newly-release study that supposedly showed that 70,000 lives had been saved by the government's covid measures. The minister also, when talking about this study, dished the American's response to Covid. She didn't answer the question but instead left one with the impression that the covid measures weren't going to go away.
I have thoughts about the minister's answer. The 70,000 number is surely b.s. How could they come what with that number? Were they counting? How do you define a patient's life as being saved? (Was Hank Aaron's life saved for ten days after he took the vaccine? Was Justin Trudeau's life saved the first time or the second time he contracted covid?) Was the number generated by a model with assumptions that the measures were effective? And who made the model? Could these people be trusted? And when the 70,000 number was come up with, did they minus the deaths that could be attributed to the covid measures like missed surgeries and procedures, lack of exercise, assorted lockdown damage, economic damage, emotional damage brought on by social isolation, and vaccine deaths? And was a cost benefit analysis done? I suspect not.
Thoughts? Email me at andiskaulins@hotmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment