What do you think?
Rate this book
Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 2: Update and Examination of Lockdowns as a Strategy
From former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, the second installment in the best-selling series that offers hard data about the coronavirus epidemic - rather than hysterical predictions of doom.While Unreported Truths Part 1 focused on how many people are dying from COVID-19, this section discusses an equally important but even more complex the history of lockdowns, and the evidence that they work as intended. Like Part 1, this section draws on primary sources like Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization reports, along with news articles, government documents, and scientific papers.In three chapters, this section explains the surprising scientific debate around lockdowns BEFORE March, along with the evidence that they did or did not work as intended to reduce the spread of the coronavirus and save lives. If you have been wondering whether lockdowns made any difference - as the media has loudly insisted - Part 2 will give you the truthful, accurate and well-sourced information you need to make up your own mind.Please This booklet contains only the second section of Unreported Truths. Part 1 is available separately.
40 pages, Paperback
Published August 3, 2020
638 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
August 6, 2020
Must read if truth matters.
August 19, 2020
In part 2, Berenson focuses on the effects of “Lockdowns” as a strategy. Some key take-aways:
• After a flu scare in 2005, then-President George W. Bush asked scientists for research on slowing epidemics. Dr. Mecher, an internist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, connected with Robert Glass, a computer scientist at Sandia National Laboratories. For a science project, Glass’s 14-year-old daughter had created a model of the way social distancing might slow the spread of the flu. Glass built on it to create a simulation “proving” lockdowns could reduce an influenza epidemic in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people by 90 percent. “Dr. Mecher received the results at his office in Washington and was amazed,” the Times wrote. Yes, you read that correctly, our response the Covid-19 was partially based upon a scientist’s 14-year old child's science project!
• Yet the models are hardly based on any real data about either spread or lockdowns. At their core, these models are simply software programs designed to simulate reality, based on the assumptions that the person who creates them inputs into them. They are as realistic as a game of SimCity, though less colorful. Nonetheless, Ferguson’s model produced highly precise answers. Lockdowns could reduce coronavirus deaths 95 percent or more if they continued until a vaccine was developed.
• Even the WHO seems to have recognized the futility of lockdowns. In a recent interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, a leader of the organization’s coronavirus response team, discouraged countries from reimposing lockdowns. They are a “blunt, sheer force instrument” with severe social and economic consequences, she said.
• Some European leaders have publicly admitted lockdowns were a mistake. In July, Jean Castex, the French prime minister, said the country would never again “impose a lockdown like the one did last March, because we’ve learned… that the economic and human consequences from a total lockdown are disastrous.”
• Yes, the economic and human consequences. I thought I’d write a lot about those in this section, but I haven’t bothered, because they are so self-evident. More than 50 million Americans have filed for unemployment; the United States economy shrank by 1/ 3 in the second quarter on an annualized basis, the sharpest drop ever recorded.
• The damage goes far beyond bank accounts. Since March, drug overdose deaths have spiked from New Jersey to British Columbia; murders have soared in many big American cities. (We don’t know exactly how much, because although we obsessively count coronavirus deaths in real-time, we pay far less attention to other causes of death.) Millions of “elective” surgeries have been postponed worldwide, leading to untold misery for patients suffering from chronic pain, failing joints, and other ailments, and even death in the cases of people needing heart surgery or cancer care.
Hopefully, sooner rather than later, there can be a rational evaluation of the nation-wide hysteria and politicization of our Covid-19 response and the long-lasting and unnecessary damage it inflicted upon our society. This will not be our last pandemic. Shame on us if we fail to learn serious lessons.
Again, Berenson has done an excellent job. This is what real reporting used to look like. It’s been a long time since I have seen it. I look forward to the continuation of this series. Every thinking person should read it!
• After a flu scare in 2005, then-President George W. Bush asked scientists for research on slowing epidemics. Dr. Mecher, an internist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, connected with Robert Glass, a computer scientist at Sandia National Laboratories. For a science project, Glass’s 14-year-old daughter had created a model of the way social distancing might slow the spread of the flu. Glass built on it to create a simulation “proving” lockdowns could reduce an influenza epidemic in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people by 90 percent. “Dr. Mecher received the results at his office in Washington and was amazed,” the Times wrote. Yes, you read that correctly, our response the Covid-19 was partially based upon a scientist’s 14-year old child's science project!
• Yet the models are hardly based on any real data about either spread or lockdowns. At their core, these models are simply software programs designed to simulate reality, based on the assumptions that the person who creates them inputs into them. They are as realistic as a game of SimCity, though less colorful. Nonetheless, Ferguson’s model produced highly precise answers. Lockdowns could reduce coronavirus deaths 95 percent or more if they continued until a vaccine was developed.
• Even the WHO seems to have recognized the futility of lockdowns. In a recent interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, a leader of the organization’s coronavirus response team, discouraged countries from reimposing lockdowns. They are a “blunt, sheer force instrument” with severe social and economic consequences, she said.
• Some European leaders have publicly admitted lockdowns were a mistake. In July, Jean Castex, the French prime minister, said the country would never again “impose a lockdown like the one did last March, because we’ve learned… that the economic and human consequences from a total lockdown are disastrous.”
• Yes, the economic and human consequences. I thought I’d write a lot about those in this section, but I haven’t bothered, because they are so self-evident. More than 50 million Americans have filed for unemployment; the United States economy shrank by 1/ 3 in the second quarter on an annualized basis, the sharpest drop ever recorded.
• The damage goes far beyond bank accounts. Since March, drug overdose deaths have spiked from New Jersey to British Columbia; murders have soared in many big American cities. (We don’t know exactly how much, because although we obsessively count coronavirus deaths in real-time, we pay far less attention to other causes of death.) Millions of “elective” surgeries have been postponed worldwide, leading to untold misery for patients suffering from chronic pain, failing joints, and other ailments, and even death in the cases of people needing heart surgery or cancer care.
Hopefully, sooner rather than later, there can be a rational evaluation of the nation-wide hysteria and politicization of our Covid-19 response and the long-lasting and unnecessary damage it inflicted upon our society. This will not be our last pandemic. Shame on us if we fail to learn serious lessons.
Again, Berenson has done an excellent job. This is what real reporting used to look like. It’s been a long time since I have seen it. I look forward to the continuation of this series. Every thinking person should read it!
September 20, 2020
Straight scoop
Highly necessary common sense.
The best thing Democrats can do is to admit the mistake and vow never again. Perhaps that would indicate a willingness to deal with information. So far, they have endorsed more of the same, lockdown and Fauci. A hypothetical vaccine, or hypothetical alternatives are no way of dealing with a present situation.
This book provides a lot of common sense to give people a better handle on the mostly very small risk they face. Information, solid information can put people at ease. Denials make them paranoid.
Highly necessary common sense.
The best thing Democrats can do is to admit the mistake and vow never again. Perhaps that would indicate a willingness to deal with information. So far, they have endorsed more of the same, lockdown and Fauci. A hypothetical vaccine, or hypothetical alternatives are no way of dealing with a present situation.
This book provides a lot of common sense to give people a better handle on the mostly very small risk they face. Information, solid information can put people at ease. Denials make them paranoid.
August 30, 2020
Great read.... won’t you won’t hear on MSM
The reason I like Alex’s booklets is that I learn so many new things, even after being a news junkie myself.
For example, Alex informs that the country with a dense population, a country that has an aging population, and the country very proximal to China is the very country that did not have a mandated lockdown, and 2) has 1/10 the deaths as Great Britain—and Japan was not big on wearing masks.
The reason I like Alex’s booklets is that I learn so many new things, even after being a news junkie myself.
For example, Alex informs that the country with a dense population, a country that has an aging population, and the country very proximal to China is the very country that did not have a mandated lockdown, and 2) has 1/10 the deaths as Great Britain—and Japan was not big on wearing masks.
October 1, 2020
A must read for everyone.
We need more people pushing back on the tyrannical fear mongers in control. This is an important voice in that effort. At this point , only 0.01% of the world (approximately 1 million) have died from COVID. In contrast, almost 3% (approximately 50 million) died of the 1918 Spanish flu. While any individual death is tragic, the data says we are overreacting.
We need more people pushing back on the tyrannical fear mongers in control. This is an important voice in that effort. At this point , only 0.01% of the world (approximately 1 million) have died from COVID. In contrast, almost 3% (approximately 50 million) died of the 1918 Spanish flu. While any individual death is tragic, the data says we are overreacting.
October 27, 2020
Having read both pamphlets, I find them lacking in substance. Berenson has collected some documents disputing the majority views on Covid-19 to support his assertions that this virus kills mostly the elderly and compromised people. He fails to mention those who are younger and dying. He says that most of the deaths in nursing homes would have happened within the year without Covid so he can dismiss those deaths as inconsequential. I can see that Trump was fed this information and took it at face value.
Having seen how data can be easily manipulated to promote very different results, I am wary of statistical analysis of any kind. There are always ways to prove your preferred results but that does not mean either is correct. Pandemics kill many people, especially in our global world. I fear that this is just the beginning of an era of more. We will need to process many factors over a longer period to come up with substantial data that will guide us. Reports that are several years old are just conjectures and can not be substituted for the numerical data of the present.
The pamphlets are just that- a few references with no real explanation of the reports he cites. Those reports were mostly written in a vacuum based on the Spanish flu epidemic almost 100 years ago. Berenson has not convinced me that his point of view, based on his assertions, is valid.
Having seen how data can be easily manipulated to promote very different results, I am wary of statistical analysis of any kind. There are always ways to prove your preferred results but that does not mean either is correct. Pandemics kill many people, especially in our global world. I fear that this is just the beginning of an era of more. We will need to process many factors over a longer period to come up with substantial data that will guide us. Reports that are several years old are just conjectures and can not be substituted for the numerical data of the present.
The pamphlets are just that- a few references with no real explanation of the reports he cites. Those reports were mostly written in a vacuum based on the Spanish flu epidemic almost 100 years ago. Berenson has not convinced me that his point of view, based on his assertions, is valid.
August 26, 2020
Pick science, not hysteria
Yet again, berenson remains the voice of truth and calm. Facts are hard to swallow when you are in the midst of a massive panic attack but if the general population is able to take a deep breath and listen to such writers, instead of panic peddling CNN, NYT and WP, maybe we could save ourselves from the current hole we are falling into deeper and deeper.
Yet again, berenson remains the voice of truth and calm. Facts are hard to swallow when you are in the midst of a massive panic attack but if the general population is able to take a deep breath and listen to such writers, instead of panic peddling CNN, NYT and WP, maybe we could save ourselves from the current hole we are falling into deeper and deeper.
September 15, 2020
This is a good review of strategies and data related to lockdowns (the pros & cons). It was not as data-rich as Part 1, and I'd like to see more primary data studies, but this is very informative and shows the impact of lockdowns. Interested to see more data in the next part.
August 9, 2020
Documentation and Citations: Investigative Journalism is Not Dead!
This is a current and concise read that reports facts with context. This is something that most news outlets are not doing. Berenson treats his readers with respect by laying out all the facts with citations rather than spouting a talking point made only by cherry-picked professionals who have transformed science into politics.
This is a current and concise read that reports facts with context. This is something that most news outlets are not doing. Berenson treats his readers with respect by laying out all the facts with citations rather than spouting a talking point made only by cherry-picked professionals who have transformed science into politics.
December 1, 2020
Just as good as Part 1. More interesting links for future reference.
Read
May 7, 2021I highly recommend reading Berenson’s COVID-19 books in light of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
December 13, 2020
Know the Facts
Great job laying out what is really happening. Pay attention to his and his next installments. Research shows how were way over-reacting.
Great job laying out what is really happening. Pay attention to his and his next installments. Research shows how were way over-reacting.
August 14, 2021
A factual look into if, how and where lockdowns worked. Also touched on the unintended consequences of lockdowns. One would hope data could guide us in the future when making decisions around locking down, but sadly partisan politics will likely lead the way as with so many things today.
September 6, 2020
Trying to find a conspiracy theory....
Some extent this „Part 2“ rehashes his material from „Part 1“ and continues his heavy use of media sources (including social media posts) vs. citing primary literature. I am starting to understand why he is no longer working for a major newspaper.
Some extent this „Part 2“ rehashes his material from „Part 1“ and continues his heavy use of media sources (including social media posts) vs. citing primary literature. I am starting to understand why he is no longer working for a major newspaper.
October 13, 2020
A Helpful Dose of Common Sense
Cogently presented with extensive documentation, this booklet is well worth the time you will invest in reading it! Anyone whose life has been impacted by governmental responses to Covid-19, which includes all of us, will benefit from knowing the information presented here.
Cogently presented with extensive documentation, this booklet is well worth the time you will invest in reading it! Anyone whose life has been impacted by governmental responses to Covid-19, which includes all of us, will benefit from knowing the information presented here.
November 1, 2021
As in the first booklet minimising Covid19 the author tries to demonstrate that lockdowns were not necessary and argues that a number of people had in the past never recommended lockdowns while now advocating lockdowns. He views it as inconsistent while I view it as brave in acknowledging that conditions change we have to learn from it and integrate it in our thinking.
August 5, 2020
Nothing new
I read the book in 15 minutes. Figured it would be short like the first book. However, the first book contained interesting data. While this book did provide some information, it was mostly rehashed news.
I read the book in 15 minutes. Figured it would be short like the first book. However, the first book contained interesting data. While this book did provide some information, it was mostly rehashed news.
March 31, 2021
Leib Gershon Mitchell
4.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
A trade off between completeness and timeliness
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2020
This broadside needed a LOT of editing, and it is only because I paid only $5 for it that I don't slaughter it in this review.
I must disclose that I'm a Covid Skeptic, but for people who want to present the skeptical position it is necessary for them to be on point with their presentation because they have so much hysteria to work against.
In this way, the author did not "come correct"--even though there was good information here that was waiting to get out with slightly better organization.
There is also the time/timeliness trade-off: the more thorough Berenson might have been, the more his information would have fallen out of date.....given that this is a developing situation.
For that reason, I will only knock off one star.
***There is not one single page number in the whole book.
***Also, every single one of his references is to a website of some sort.
***There is no bibliography.
I would recommend that you read this book in conjunction with "The Rules of Contagion," by Adam Kucharski. There is a significant amount of background/theory that a reader needs to be able to appreciate what is being said in this book.
The most germane points in this book are something like:
1. Amazon is not a neutral party in this. You can buy "Mein Kampf," and books about bestiality... But Gd help you if you write an opinion piece about Covid.
It's only because Elon Musk had something to say that Amazon backed down, but I wonder how many thousands of other people have things to say that don't get past the censors.
2. Most cases are asymptomatic. (The figure that I have read elsewhere is 95%, but he did not present that amount in this broadside.)
3. The risk of death is on the order of 1 out of 10,000 for people under 50, even those with chronic conditions.
4. The risk of death for under 18s is something like one out of a million. (And this is only an estimate because there have been zero deaths under 18s out of 40 million people in California.)
5. As far as the data shows, the number of deaths don't depend on lockdown in any degree. The age structure of your population as well as the percent in nursing homes seem to help a lot better with prediction--insofar is anything can be predicted.
6. Earlier CDC and WHO manuals--as far back as 2006-- seem to concur that social distancing has very little evidence. It is only since the coronavirus hysteria that they have changed position.
7. Earlier CDC papers --as far back as 2007--consider Coronavirus to be a category 2 illness. (By definition, less than 450,000 deaths.) But, for some reason the treatment that they recommend these days is as if it were a category 5 illness.
8. Models are not evidence, and predictions are not data. It appears that the number of people that you estimate to die only depends on which model you choose.
9. According to the data that this author passed, not only did the models used not predict the future... but they did not even explain the past.
10. 1 out of 200 people in the United States lives in a nursing home, but they accounted for 40~50% of all Covid deaths. (If you get too strict with people in nursing homes, you might actually make the death rate worse.)
Conclusion:
Honestly, the book that describes the Coronavirus Hysteria is not going to be written probably for another 3~4 years -- it's going to take that long before people even figure out what is going on, with respect to overcounting / economic damage.
That said, this book is a decent installment on the current situation.
Verdict: Recommended at the second hand price within 60 days of this review. After that, the information will be much too dated.
4.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
A trade off between completeness and timeliness
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2020
This broadside needed a LOT of editing, and it is only because I paid only $5 for it that I don't slaughter it in this review.
I must disclose that I'm a Covid Skeptic, but for people who want to present the skeptical position it is necessary for them to be on point with their presentation because they have so much hysteria to work against.
In this way, the author did not "come correct"--even though there was good information here that was waiting to get out with slightly better organization.
There is also the time/timeliness trade-off: the more thorough Berenson might have been, the more his information would have fallen out of date.....given that this is a developing situation.
For that reason, I will only knock off one star.
***There is not one single page number in the whole book.
***Also, every single one of his references is to a website of some sort.
***There is no bibliography.
I would recommend that you read this book in conjunction with "The Rules of Contagion," by Adam Kucharski. There is a significant amount of background/theory that a reader needs to be able to appreciate what is being said in this book.
The most germane points in this book are something like:
1. Amazon is not a neutral party in this. You can buy "Mein Kampf," and books about bestiality... But Gd help you if you write an opinion piece about Covid.
It's only because Elon Musk had something to say that Amazon backed down, but I wonder how many thousands of other people have things to say that don't get past the censors.
2. Most cases are asymptomatic. (The figure that I have read elsewhere is 95%, but he did not present that amount in this broadside.)
3. The risk of death is on the order of 1 out of 10,000 for people under 50, even those with chronic conditions.
4. The risk of death for under 18s is something like one out of a million. (And this is only an estimate because there have been zero deaths under 18s out of 40 million people in California.)
5. As far as the data shows, the number of deaths don't depend on lockdown in any degree. The age structure of your population as well as the percent in nursing homes seem to help a lot better with prediction--insofar is anything can be predicted.
6. Earlier CDC and WHO manuals--as far back as 2006-- seem to concur that social distancing has very little evidence. It is only since the coronavirus hysteria that they have changed position.
7. Earlier CDC papers --as far back as 2007--consider Coronavirus to be a category 2 illness. (By definition, less than 450,000 deaths.) But, for some reason the treatment that they recommend these days is as if it were a category 5 illness.
8. Models are not evidence, and predictions are not data. It appears that the number of people that you estimate to die only depends on which model you choose.
9. According to the data that this author passed, not only did the models used not predict the future... but they did not even explain the past.
10. 1 out of 200 people in the United States lives in a nursing home, but they accounted for 40~50% of all Covid deaths. (If you get too strict with people in nursing homes, you might actually make the death rate worse.)
Conclusion:
Honestly, the book that describes the Coronavirus Hysteria is not going to be written probably for another 3~4 years -- it's going to take that long before people even figure out what is going on, with respect to overcounting / economic damage.
That said, this book is a decent installment on the current situation.
Verdict: Recommended at the second hand price within 60 days of this review. After that, the information will be much too dated.
September 9, 2020
What does epidemiology teach us
Berenson does a great job deconstructing lock downs and further explains the Sweden experience including the causes for so many unnecessary deaths there. I look forward to his future comments on masks as at least part of this book would seemingly support (at least weakly) the use of masks in certain situations. I hope he will address the emerging epidemiology on how this virus is actually being transmitted in a semi-lockdown setting. For example a team of Oklahoma college football players forced together in a highly contagious environment is allowed a break and an unusually high number return with the virus. This suggests to me that we are not tracking the true mode of spread between ‘enclaves of containment’. I looked into contact tracing a few weeks ago and it seemed only the State of Louisiana was publishing actionable data. I suspect that bars, casual hook ups, various social events and even protests will be strongly implicated in our continued struggle to eliminate this virus as a major threat. However, it us much easier to pin the blame in political terms than human nature.
Berenson does a great job deconstructing lock downs and further explains the Sweden experience including the causes for so many unnecessary deaths there. I look forward to his future comments on masks as at least part of this book would seemingly support (at least weakly) the use of masks in certain situations. I hope he will address the emerging epidemiology on how this virus is actually being transmitted in a semi-lockdown setting. For example a team of Oklahoma college football players forced together in a highly contagious environment is allowed a break and an unusually high number return with the virus. This suggests to me that we are not tracking the true mode of spread between ‘enclaves of containment’. I looked into contact tracing a few weeks ago and it seemed only the State of Louisiana was publishing actionable data. I suspect that bars, casual hook ups, various social events and even protests will be strongly implicated in our continued struggle to eliminate this virus as a major threat. However, it us much easier to pin the blame in political terms than human nature.
August 31, 2020
This is Part II and focuses on Lockdowns. Did you know the lockdown model pushed by Fauci and company was based on one of the insider/scientist's 14-yr-old daughter's high school science project? Doesn't that make you feel good about killing the economy and locking yourself away like Rapunzel for months at a time (some of us in blue states are still locked away - over 6 months after we heard, "14 days to flatten the curve."
Fully documented with references/end notes, Berenson has done the research and turned everything we've been told on its head. Because of the timely subject matter, Berenson is releasing three chapters at a time in what will, ultimately, be pubbed as a full book. Still, I don't want to wait to read the tome. Give it to me piecemeal. A little truth goes a long way in the face of junk science.
Fully documented with references/end notes, Berenson has done the research and turned everything we've been told on its head. Because of the timely subject matter, Berenson is releasing three chapters at a time in what will, ultimately, be pubbed as a full book. Still, I don't want to wait to read the tome. Give it to me piecemeal. A little truth goes a long way in the face of junk science.
September 6, 2021
Lockdowns were not effective at "flattening the curve" or stemming the spread of coronavirus nor COVID-19 illness or death, and had large, negative societal impacts that were not adequately considered or communicated, and are still being felt. Government reports and data are used and cited throughout, lending a lot of credibility to the narrative and conclusions. "What lockdown proponents seem to forget is that a general, gradual slowdown makes little difference, especially for a virus whose risks are as skewed to the elderly and sick as Sars-Cov-2. What matters is breaking spikes that can cause hospital overrun, while protecting the vulnerable. General lockdowns do neither." Lockdowns must be intellectually and politically discredited so they are not used again.
November 7, 2020
Short and sweet and filled with facts.
Short and sweet. Filled with facts that highlight the pros and cons of lockdowns. It’s clear that the siren call for lockdowns is just that and they simply only lure us to greater danger. There are isolated cases where they help, but effective public policy should avoid them and focus resources on protecting those with the greatest vulnerability. What a concept, huh?! Too bad that doesn’t conflate with media’s decidedly fact free opinion that multiplies it’s harm by the size of its megaphone.
Short and sweet. Filled with facts that highlight the pros and cons of lockdowns. It’s clear that the siren call for lockdowns is just that and they simply only lure us to greater danger. There are isolated cases where they help, but effective public policy should avoid them and focus resources on protecting those with the greatest vulnerability. What a concept, huh?! Too bad that doesn’t conflate with media’s decidedly fact free opinion that multiplies it’s harm by the size of its megaphone.
November 14, 2020
This little pamphlet is a great antidote to the media gaslighting emanating from the “progressive” swamp. With just the facts backed by copious links the author shines the clear light of truth on an anti virus program that is not compatible with our civilization. This logical and reasonable essay leaves speculation and politics aside and paints a clear path to resolve the next wave of COVID.
I hope that politicians who follow the science will read this booklet and follow the science. I also suggest that we read it to mitigate the damage from this new, evil disease.
I hope that politicians who follow the science will read this booklet and follow the science. I also suggest that we read it to mitigate the damage from this new, evil disease.
November 27, 2020
Don't Panic
I am late reading this pamphlet. For some reason it didn't show up on my list of things to read. Read the pamphlet and assess the evidence yourself. Berenson makes a case that panic is the problem. Further he makes a good case that we are failing to protect our most vulnerable and in many cases helping the disease spread. I must be careful because as of October 1 I am in a vulnerable group. In another sense I am already a victim because I was laid of from my job because the economy slowed so fast. At my age it is I c.eat that I will ever be employed again.
I am late reading this pamphlet. For some reason it didn't show up on my list of things to read. Read the pamphlet and assess the evidence yourself. Berenson makes a case that panic is the problem. Further he makes a good case that we are failing to protect our most vulnerable and in many cases helping the disease spread. I must be careful because as of October 1 I am in a vulnerable group. In another sense I am already a victim because I was laid of from my job because the economy slowed so fast. At my age it is I c.eat that I will ever be employed again.
December 5, 2020
Reporting
I don’t claim to be smart and generally defer to those in my family that are smart. From Day One it has been apparent that the elderly and the sick were most at risk and lockdowns KILLED MORE PEOPLE overall (Covid, suicides, untreated medical disease, etc) than Covid would have killed if no lockdowns were in place. It is frustrating that there is absolutely zero factual reporting on Covid. We could, and should, do better for those at risk. The dumbest thing said is that Covid is an equal opportunity killer.
I don’t claim to be smart and generally defer to those in my family that are smart. From Day One it has been apparent that the elderly and the sick were most at risk and lockdowns KILLED MORE PEOPLE overall (Covid, suicides, untreated medical disease, etc) than Covid would have killed if no lockdowns were in place. It is frustrating that there is absolutely zero factual reporting on Covid. We could, and should, do better for those at risk. The dumbest thing said is that Covid is an equal opportunity killer.
December 7, 2020
The Only Honesty I've Seen In The Last 9 Months
I appreciate getting actual data instead of a lot of fluff and nonsense. Seeing anything I can sink my teeth into is wonderful after months of excrement the media shovels at us. I find I can no longer watch the news or read a paper or magazine without screaming, "Bulls__t!" With the possible exception of the Creator, herself, I can no longer believe anything put out by anyone , anywhere about anything ever again. Isn't that depressing. Where's Walter Cronkite when we need him?
I appreciate getting actual data instead of a lot of fluff and nonsense. Seeing anything I can sink my teeth into is wonderful after months of excrement the media shovels at us. I find I can no longer watch the news or read a paper or magazine without screaming, "Bulls__t!" With the possible exception of the Creator, herself, I can no longer believe anything put out by anyone , anywhere about anything ever again. Isn't that depressing. Where's Walter Cronkite when we need him?
August 8, 2020
A Common Sense Read
Alex Berenson in this second installment uses common sense to shed light on why lockdown don't work. Using real data with not much fabrication of manipulation, it's too bad our mainstream media and our career politicians forgot what their actual job was and that is to represent and defend the American people. Too offer sound decisions and to report actual truths.
Alex Berenson in this second installment uses common sense to shed light on why lockdown don't work. Using real data with not much fabrication of manipulation, it's too bad our mainstream media and our career politicians forgot what their actual job was and that is to represent and defend the American people. Too offer sound decisions and to report actual truths.
August 18, 2020
Timely and factual discussion
I was impressed with the authors candid, comprehensive and detailed review of this extremely complex issue. When politicians are involved in the question credibility often clouds the issue. In this case, I believe the author maintained an exceptionally high degree of objectivity and rationality. There is still much to learn, as science is never settled.
I was impressed with the authors candid, comprehensive and detailed review of this extremely complex issue. When politicians are involved in the question credibility often clouds the issue. In this case, I believe the author maintained an exceptionally high degree of objectivity and rationality. There is still much to learn, as science is never settled.
August 30, 2020
After reading part one of this series I was anxious to read part two. Book two also provides accurate and verifiable information about the COVID-19 Pandemic response specifically in the area of lockdown. The information that I have seen and heard from the mainstream media has been all over the place on lockdowns that left me with a lot of questions. This book answered a lot of them for me. I can't wait for part 3.
September 7, 2020
As a matter of policy I don't read the media when I want the truth. This book and its predecessor are factual accounts of what has been going on. As I suspected, the facts don't support the hysteria. The people have been stampeded into wearing facemasks and locking themselves in for no good reason. I fear that authoritarians may learn how to rule by fear based in the lessons they learn from this minor virus and I fear for my grandchildren's future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews