Back on 7 July, the Trends Journal published the article “SOCIAL DISTANCING: WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?”
In the article, we explained how there was no scientific evidence to support this new term that the Presstitutes kept spewing out and politicians enforced by making up rules that lacked scientific facts.
At the time, among the media-anointed “experts” insisting on social distancing, we quoted Dr. Jeff Martin, an epidemiologist at UC San Francisco: “‘Social distancing’ will be the key phrase in the days and weeks to come.”
Even earlier, on 21 April, the Trends Journal published the article, “TREND TRACKING LESSON: “THINK FOR YOURSELF,” which quoted a Facebook spokesperson: “Events that defy government’s guidance on social distancing aren’t allowed on Facebook.”
Now, after a full year of draconian lockdowns backed by haphazard, made-up rules on social distancing, The New York Times ran the headline last Tuesday:
Three Feet or Six? Protocols for Schools Stirs Debate
The article admits that the confusion and lack of consistent protocols “has been especially consequential for schools, many of which have not fully reopened because they do not have enough space to keep students six feet apart.”
The article states while the CDC has consistently called for six-foot social distancing across the board, including schools,
“Now, spurred by a better understanding of how the virus spreads and a growing concern about the harms of keeping children out of school, some public health experts are calling on the agency to reduce the recommended distance in schools from six feet to three.”
“Better Understanding?” How about lies, arrogance, and deception being enforced on the public without scientific data to support their mandates?
Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of Brown University School of Public Health, said, “It never struck me that six feet was particularly sensical in the context of mitigation… I wish the CDC would just come out and say this is not a major issue.”
Note: Dr. Jha was being polite when he said the CDC’s social-distancing recommendation wasn’t “particularly sensical.” In plain English, that means it’s “nonsense.”
And so are various other social-distance recommendations. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends three- to six feet of social distancing in schools, but the WHO recommends just one meter (3.3 feet).
The New York Times article then states,
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear and consistent in its social distancing recommendation: To reduce the risk of contracting the coronavirus, people should remain at least six feet away from others who are not in their households. The guideline holds whether you are eating in a restaurant, lifting weights at a gym, or learning long division in a fourth-grade classroom.”
Just as with mask-wearing and other made-up lockdown restrictions, mere days after the NYT article was published, which called the CDC “clear and consistent,” the health organization shifted its recommendation.
CDC Flips Again
On Friday, the CDC changed its mind about social distance requirements. As reported by CNBC on its website:
“The CDC revised its guidance on social distancing in schools, saying most students can now sit 3 feet apart instead of 6 feet so long as they are wearing masks:
The recommendation is for all K-12 students, regardless of whether community transmission is low, moderate, or substantial.
In communities where transmission is high, the CDC recommends that middle school and high school students remain at least 6 feet apart if schools aren’t able to keep students and teachers in assigned groups.”
Dr. Lindsey Marr, a specialist in viral transmission at Virginia Tech, had the most accurate quote to describe the months-long insistence of the six-foot distance rule: “It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air.”
Last Tuesday, after citing the CDC for its consistency in recommending six feet of social distancing, on Friday, The New York Times reported:
“There was not clear evidence that high levels of community transmission made in-person schooling riskier, said Dr. Elissa Perkins, the director of emergency medicine infectious disease management at Boston University School of Medicine, and a co-author, with Dr. Branch-Elliman, of the paper that questioned the six-foot guidance.”
Dr. Perkins added,
“I applaud the move to get elementary schools back in person regardless of community transmission… And I also understand that there is some hesitancy about applying that to middle and high school students, although I’m not sure that it is fully in keeping with the evidence that we’ve seen.”
TRENDPOST: Readers of the Trends Journal have known for the better part of a year that the lockdown rules, which have destroyed the economies of the U.S. and many other countries around the globe, have been completely “pulled out of thin air” to quote viral-transmission specialist Dr. Lindsay Marr.
Back on 16 June, in our article “MAKES NO SENSE RULES: THE NEW ABNORMAL,” we wrote:
As much of the world is unlocked from the three-month plus lockdown, as we had forecast, the vast, often contradictory, non-science based, made-up rules and regulations that are not laws, but edicts, are further destroying the already severely damaged global economy… and driving businesses and individuals deeper in poverty and desperation.
TRENDPOST: As we noted from the onset of the COVID War, like so many other wars, it was based on outright lies.
On the school front, we have detailed how devastating the lack of in-classroom learning has been on children and parents when it began to be enforced in February 2020.
In March 2020, the CDC said schools should be shut for eight weeks or more to lessen the impact and spread of the novel coronavirus.
Now, a year later, the same CDC that was instrumental in pushing for school closings back then is assessing the lockdown implications. As reported by Microsoft News last Friday:
“Virtual instruction might present more risks than does in-person instruction related to child and parental mental and emotional health.
The new study also described how the pandemic has increased parental responsibility and stress, with many parents—mothers in particular—having to now juggle work and schooling… parents of students in remote educational arrangements were more likely to say that they were worried about losing their jobs.
Parents whose children attended either virtual or remote learning were more likely to report that they noticed worsening mental and emotional health (24.9 percent for remote parents, 15.9 for in-person parents).
Students of color were more likely to be engaged in remote learning at about twice the rate of white students, meaning that they were more likely to suffer from the psychological effects of learning from home than were their white counterparts.”
The Microsoft News article states, “It could be years before researchers fully grasp the pandemic’s effect on the social fabric.” This is yet another example of mainstream media ignoring the clear fact that the problem is not the “pandemic’s effect on the social fabric,” but the lockdown’s effect.
