Why don’t Governments give both sides of the story?
Listening to the latest Government pronouncements on the Wuhan virus one wonders why, after all this time, they are not more balanced in their approach. Why do they not provide more information?
Why do they not let us know that there are many studies that show the testing methods being used are suspect. In other words, the number of cases identified may be invalid.
Why do they not indicate that lockdowns also cause significant health problems – in depression, suicides, etc. No mention is ever made of the Great Barrington Declaration where tens of thousands of health professionals question the benefits of lockdowns when all the pros and cons are considered? I have found a list of 34 commentaries that show lockdowns are worse than doing nothing – that concentrating on the vulnerable is the best solution.
Where is the cost-benefit analysis?
Counties in the state of Kansas who had no lockdowns had no greater fatality rates than counties that had lockdowns. And look at Sweden versus other European countries, or the states of North and South Dakota.
Why doesn’t the Government supply the information on incidence of cases in different situations. Just how many cases come from restaurants, and other eating establishments versus retail stores for example – where is the evidence for all their specific measures?
Why doesn’t the Government explain how the death statistics are determined – those who die with virus versus those who die from the Wuhan virus?
Why doesn’t the Government indicate that many studies show that masks are ineffective. I have researched over 20 that show they are ineffective.
Once it was six feet for everyone – now that’s just for adults, according to the so-called American experts with the CDC.
Why don’t they explain that almost in every jurisdiction in the world cases rose after mask mandates were implemented?
Why don’t the Governments remind us all the vaccines are experimental.
Why are cases rising here after months of mask wearing and social distancing? We were told this would control, if not reduce cases.
Surely, Governments are responsible to the people who elected them !
Surely, they should have to prove with evidence that the measures they are taking are better than not implementing them!
Recent studies cast doubt and the Governments’ refusal to lay out a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis concerning their actions leave the populace in an awkward position and confusion results.
Many Government actions are obviously contrary to the provisions of the Constitution – of assembly and association and incursions on personal liberty and worship. Governments should justify their measures within this context when they implement them. It is absurd, for example, the way religious organizations are treated versus the treatment of Costco or Walmart.