Huh? Dutch (Netherlands) data CONFIRMS what we knew, what Ioannidis (Stanford) documented in 2020, what I, Oskoui, Risch, McCullough, Tenenbaum wrote in AIER 2020/2021, young had near zero COVID risk
Near zero risk for severe outcome or death, we were clear & data was clear yet we locked down the healthy & well, the younger, middle aged, kids, while still failing to protect the vulnerable elderly
Why did we lock down the young children, teens, young persons, middle aged and well people, when we knew 2 weeks out that their risk of severe outcomes was basically zero. Infection fatality rate <50 years old estimated at 0.002 % (0.001-0.004). This is in line with Ioannidis’s thorough estimates.
These researchers (if you read deeper into the paper) appear to say that death declines were due to vaccine. This again is a ludicrous finding and conclusion for they did not control for i)improvement in hospital and health care across time ii)natural exposure immunity iii)the use of early treatment (self medicating etc.) iv)co-morbidities v) healthy vaccinee user effect. All of these must always be taken into account when interpreting observational type research (epidemiological) including these types of modelling studies.
SOURCE:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.09.23285703v1.full.pdf
I don't think "covid" was real, I think it was always the flu, they used the fake PCR tests to make it look like there was a pandemic which there never was.
"Why did we lock down the young children, teens, young persons, middle aged and well people, when we knew 2 weeks out that their risk of severe outcomes was basically zero."
If I remember correctly, the reason was to save Grandma, because kids could carry the virus home and infect Grandma, therefore keeping schools open and allowing children to play outside is the same as killing Grandma. At least that was their initial reasoning before the narrative shifted because "Science".