>>9160968 lb
I like the double meaning
Of Q's laser targeting video
It's so suggestive
Like this image
It suggests two Q's but not quite
It suggests an infinity symbol, but not quite
It suggests a vesica pisces, but not quite
And yet, it leads us towards 20/20 vision
> Professor Neil Ferguson's covid model
Times of India got a team to audit and critique the Imperial College model.
They concluded that Sweden did things right, by ignoring the model.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/a-critique-of-neil-fergusons-the-imperial-college-pandemic-model/
There is a bigger lesson here. On a planet ruled by a Globalist NWO there would be only one model, one way, and that's that. But in a world of Sovereign Nations that Trump and Putin and Xi envisage, there is more freedom to try different models, to go against the consensus and to get it right. We are all better off when we learn from the smartest of us.
Sweden's approach to the pandemic was right. Some social distancing but pubs and restaurants and workplaces stayed open.
And France and Madagascar has shown the way to treating COVID19 using malaria medicines. From France we learned that a combo of
Hydroxychloroquine sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Azithromycin
Vitamin C
Would slow and stop the progression of disease.
From Madagascar we learned that herbal preparations of Artemisia annua containing Artemisinin, would also slow the progress, giving the body time to heal.
Following the herd?
How Wrong Were the Models and Why?
https://www.aier.org/article/how-wrong-were-the-models-and-why/
The epidemiology models used to justify and extend the ongoing coronavirus lockdown are starting to come under much-needed scholarly scrutiny. A new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) presents a detailed statistical examination of several influential models, and particularly the study out of Imperial College-London (ICL) that famously predicted up to 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths in the United States under its most extreme scenario.
The ICL model presented an array of scenarios based on different policy responses, but this extreme projection – also referred to as its “do nothing” scenario – grabbed all the headlines back in March. Although the ICL paper described its own “do nothing” scenario as “unlikely” given that it assumed the virus’s spread in the absence of even modest policy and behavioral responses, its astronomical death toll projections were widely credited at the time with swaying several governments to adopt the harsh lockdown policies that we are now living under.
The Trump administration specifically cited ICL’s 2.2 million death projection on March 16th when it shifted course toward a stringent set of “social distancing” policies, which many states then used as a basis for shelter-in-place orders. In the United Kingdom, where the same model’s “do nothing” scenario projected over 500,000 deaths, the ICL team was directly credited for inducing Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shift course from a strategy of gradually building up “herd immunity” through a lighter touch policy approach to the lockdowns now in place.
Plainly, the ICL model shifted the policy responses of two leading world powers in dramatic ways.