Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty: A Bad or Good Idea?

November 21, 2022February 6, 2023
by Devin Russell

Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty: A Bad or Good Idea?

Emily Oster, a Brown University Economist, who writes for The Atlantic, recently wrote a piece entitled “LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY.”₁ Based on the all caps of the title, she was very excited with the idea of amnesty. This article has gone viral since it was published. Let’s go piece by piece (as seen in blue) to break down what amnesty might make sense and what doesn’t because it’s never as simple as one or the other.

“We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.

In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks. Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.””

AMNESTY GRANTED — The general sentiment of what Emily is trying to say so far is fair. Not everything we understand now, was known back when the pandemic started. For those that were once ignorant, as we all were at one point with this novel virus, but learned over time and had flexible opinions as the pandemic continued. The problem is not everyone learns or changes their incorrect opinions, sometimes even when they know they should.
Regarding masks, one thing that complicated matters was that the higher ups didn’t want the general public to make a rush on masks, like the people banking at Bailey Building and Loan at the end of It’s A Wonderful Life. They wanted to make sure health care workers had enough, which is fair. Problem is the US Surgeon General at the time, Dr. Jerome Adams, told the public to “stop buying masks!” He said “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”₂ The CDC said around this same time, which is in early 2020, that healthy people in the US shouldn’t wear masks because they won’t protect them from the novel coronavirus.
The natural question here from a tenth decent journalist would be, why do the medical workers need masks if you don’t think they work? … “This is a psychological thing,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told CNN. “The coronavirus is coming, and we feel rather helpless. By getting masks and wearing them, we move the locus of control somewhat to ourselves.”₃ Dr. Anthony Fauci also said on 60 Minutes on 3/8/2020 that, “when you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better ….”₄ How did we go from masks won’t help much or at all to wear masks outside? To being forced to wear a mask to go to a restaurant? To then you’re a murderer if you don’t wear a mask? I don’t think it was science that facilitated a drastic 180 change in a few months.
AMNESTY DENIED — Further investigation needed as to why we were lied to about masks and what harm that may have caused. Also, as to why the USA wouldn’t have adequate stockpiles of the necessities for a pandemic that health officials predicted would occur at some point. Why are you “planning for” pandemics in advance if you’re never ready for them and handle them horribly? The all over the map messaging on masks doesn’t get a pass. It wasn’t based on science and it wasn’t based on ignorance. It was based on something else. Public health agencies should not one second say, masks don’t help the general public. Then in the next say, you should wear them even outside, and not expect blowback, resistance, and confusion. If they do work, which there are studies to say they do, then our public health officials lied to us, our media quoted psychologists saying it’s just a psychological benefit, and people were harmed or died because of it.₅ Everyone that’s supposed to be for the people, failed the people. If masks don’t work well, then people were made to wear masks for no reason, wasting money and causing division, hurting quality of life. It’s either a lie or gross incompetence. Pick one. Neither deserves amnesty.

“I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming. But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.”

It’s a good thing to be analyzing the past to learn and improve from it (oddly later on in her article Emily will make the plea to not dwell on history). There were certainly tough choices that had to be made with limited to no data without the benefit of more time to find the data out. This is where I somewhat agree with Emily, but it depends what we are talking about specifically. Each individual incidence needs to be analyzed. She seems very data driven from what I see, which is great, as long as you understand the limitations of the data and also understand that there can be lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Emily’s article gets interesting in this paragraph. Children getting back to school during the pandemic is Emily’s thing. She has two children of her own. She fought hard for this in the United States, and was an authority on the matter. I’ve read about some of her biases on this issue as well, such as ignoring certain data in favor of her view. Maybe she just loves the data her opinions want her to love. I’m in the middle on this issue. There are good points on each side to be had, even now, while she suggests it was only reasonable to believe schools should be closed if you lacked the info in 2020.
AMNESTY GRANTED — Reasonable people can disagree on whether schools should be open or not, and many other things related to the pandemic. If you’re trying to fairly discuss the topic, you are granted amnesty. If you are not arguing the topic fairly, you don’t get the amnesty though. That brings us to some criticisms of Emily.
One article discussing school reponings, and Emily Oster, states “”Back in early May (2020), for example, Oster concluded that “infection among kids is simply very unlikely. It’s not that they are infected and don’t know it, it seems like they are just not infected very often.” But this ignored some conspicuous caveats to those early studies—for example, kids were rarely tested in the spring (as tests were in short supply), and children were stuck at home, with far less opportunity for exposure.”₆ I guess you can be data driven and intellectually dishonest at the same time, who knew? This goes back to “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If you don’t analyze data any deeper than the surface than you can make illogical conclusions, or even worse, you can understand the flaws in the data and ignore them to march on with your narrative. The fact that one might know things so well means they can also manipulate things well to an audience that’s less educated on the topic and doesn’t have the data available to them like the manipulator does. Emily had decided in May of 2020 that school’s should repon because her kids were driving her nuts, I mean because she felt kids don’t get infected with Covid typically. This of course was not true. I’m not sure why she assumed there weren’t asymptomatic cases, but in May of 2020 if you’re saying infection among kids is unlikely, you probably have to do a lot of assuming and mental gymnastics to be so sure of yourself at that point. The Mayo Clinic stated on 10/21/22, “Children represent about 19% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since the pandemic began. While children are as likely to get COVID-19 as adults, kids are less likely to become severely ill.”₇
This piece continues, “In late July (2020), when a study came out that suggested children with COVID-19 have a higher viral load than adults, Oster quickly wrote a piece saying it would be a “very big leap” to apply these findings to school reopening discussions. Instead, she urged focus on a large South Korea contact tracing study, which suggested younger children transmitted the virus in their households at a lower rate than other groups. A month later, the leaders for that South Korea study said it wasn’t really clear who infected whom in the households, and called for further research. Even today (written in October of 2020), how effectively children transmit the virus to others remains one of the fuzziest, and most pressing, questions.”
Susie Flaherty of The Harvard Gazette wrote on October 14, 2021 that, “”There had been the question about whether the high viral load in children correlated with the live virus. We’ve been able to provide a definitive answer that these high viral loads are infectious,” says Lael Yonker, pediatric pulmonologist at MGH and co-first author with Julie Boucau, senior research scientist at MGH and the Ragon Institute. Reassuringly, they also found that viral load had no correlation to severity of disease in the kids themselves, but concerns remain for them and those around them: “Children can carry the virus and infect other people,” says Yonker. Students and teachers have returned to classrooms, but many questions remain about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children. Most children are asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic when they develop COVID-19, giving the misconception that children are less infectious. Studying the virologic features of SARS-CoV-2 in children with COVID-19, and how SARS-CoV-2 infection differs between children and adults, is an essential component for establishing effective public health policies, not only to ensure safety within the school but also for controlling the pandemic, says Yonker. As COVID-19 variants continue to emerge, infected children are potential “reservoirs” for the evolution of new variants as well as potential spreaders of current variants, she says. “Kids with COVID-19, even if asymptomatic, are infectious and can harbor SARS-CoV-2 variants. Variants could potentially impact both the severity of the disease and the efficacy of vaccines, as we are seeing with the Delta variant. When we cultured the live virus, we found a wide variety of genetic variants,” adds Yonker. “New variants have the potential to be more contagious and also make kids sicker.” Yonker emphasizes that the group’s findings reinforce the importance of masking for children: “The implications of this study show that masking and other public health measures are needed for everyone — children, adolescents, and adults — to get us out of this pandemic.” The viral loads of kids in the hospital were no different from those found in hospitalized adults, according to the study. Evidence cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that when compared to adults, children “likely have similar viral loads in their nasopharynx, similar secondary infection rates, and can spread the virus to others.””₈ Again, Emily Oster was wrong in the assumption that she made. She also was quick to defend her position rather than waiting to find out if the high viral load meant transmissibility. She was marching on.
More from this piece, “In a Wall Street Journal article published last week (October 2020) on school reopenings, Oster told the reporter that her data “suggests the risks to kids from going to school are small.” Oster worked on creating data for COVID-19 school transmission. Rebekah Jones was doing the same at a larger scale. “Oster approached Jones’s team in August about potentially collaborating, and they offered Oster full and free access to their data. “But she basically decided to just pick what data she wanted, not what’s available,” says Jones. “It’s offensive to researchers, when you see something so unabashedly unscientific, and when the opportunity to do something scientific was there.” Jones added, “You can’t just have one point in a state and claim you have a grasp on what is occurring for a wide spectrum of school types and incomes, but that is literally what she does.” Oster says she thinks Jones’s tracker is a “great project,” and it’s “really valuable to have such a comprehensive view,” but that her goal was to also study individual school rates. COVID Monitor, however, does track school rate data.” … “… following a viral Atlantic piece Oster published earlier this month, with the controversial headline “Schools Aren’t Super-Spreaders.” Her argument, that schools are minor sources of transmission, hinged primarily on her own dataset, though she also pointed to reopenings in places like Florida, Georgia, and Texas. There were no caveats about why those states’ data might be interpreted with caution, and no mention of their rising caseloads.” Emily Oster seems to be entirely driven by what she is trying to prove, instead of analyzing fairly. Coming to a conclusion first and not allowing her opinions to change based on proper analyzation of new data. By the way, asymptomatic cases can even cause damage.₉
AMNESTY DENIED — Emily Oster did not seem to fairly analyze school reopenings. No Amnesty Soup for you! Clamoring for schools to open so early into the pandemic is odd. Emily put education over health from the beginning, and never strayed. You have to wonder if she wrote “LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY” in order to help get amnesty for herself. Of course, she acts as if opening schools is a consensus belief, so I’m not sure. She may believe her push for opening schools is seen as 100% positive. Another percentage though is 9.8%. The percentage of kids that get Long Haul Covid in the United States (and I’ve read 12-15% in the UK). If there is actually a consensus, which I highly doubt, they’re ignoring hundreds of thousands of children suffering with this horrific illness.₁₀ It’s naive to think we would know about the long term health problems for kids in 2020. Covid Long Haulers are not getting adequate help now, in almost 2023. Some have been sick more than 3 years.

“Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.”

It was known early on that J&J was less efficacious. It was mainly taken by people, and pushed by some doctors, because it was, at the time, known to be one and done. Plus it was not a new type of technology used on a mass scale for the first time (like mRNA). Efficacy had nothing to do with it. The efficacies of the 3 main vaccine brands in the USA were known by 2/2/2021 at least, before most of the US population had received 1 shot. At that point only 31.57 million were vaccinated, which is less than 10% of the population.¹² The mRNA Covid Vaccines were utilized WAY more than J&J despite all this. For example, by April 1, 2021 out of 153 million + doses given, 150 million + were Moderna or Pfizer.¹³ This seems like a cupcake slash softball slash Barney example to bring up, that doesn’t even really make sense, as I explained. Many of the damning examples of pandemic malfiecense seem conspicuously left out of her piece. Guess they wouldn’t help her point. his seems to be a recurring theme for her.
What’s even more odd about this part is the link she references has no mention of J&J at all. But she was right in that only time would tell us that J&J wasn’t particularly safe and needed to be severely restricted. I’m SURE she was alluding to that when she meant the mRNA vaccines won out, as data would say they cause less adverse events per shot than J&J according to a VAERS analyzation.₁₄
AMNESTY GRANTED — To the doctors that suggested their patients take J&J over Moderna or Pfizer Vaccines. They wouldn’t have known early on that they would be more dangerous, plus they figured one and done might be a better option and an easier option for patients, and trusted in the old technology over the unknowns of the new.

“Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.”

Does she mean Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, and President Biden whom have all made claims that if you get the Covid Vaccines you won’t get Covid?₁₅ That was a lie by the way, wildly irresponsible, and not in the earnest for the good of society. Oh she meant Trump. What he said was bad as well. He deserves all the heat he got and gets for that, but she ignored the false claims our public health officials told us to our faces. Scientists! That’s worse than a bloviating Trump. She seems to be ignoring all the censorship taking place as well. That’s bad. Misinformation was called misinformation that wasn’t misinformation. That was bad. I say was as if this stuff has stopped happening, it has not. I’m not sure how she comes to the point of most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society. It sounds like a major assumption to me. Shouldn’t we try to figure out if that is true first before it gets declared so amnesty can rain on everyone? From where I’m standing it seems like there were many things that weren’t done with good intentions for the good of society. Mass censorship is never a good thing for society, as we are finding out the hard way. There’s really no reason to blindly believe all the errors were made with the good of society in mind.
AMNESTY DENIED — We will not simply deem all errors were made by people working in earnest for the good of society without finding out if that’s actually true first. Furthermore, gross negligence still needs accountability regardless of that. Horrible take by Emily.

“Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.

The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.”

She’s right that people do scoreboard watch a lot, rub it in when they are right, and sometimes people were just right for the wrong reasons. Hindsight is 20/20. This isn’t productive really, unless to point out the flaws in the decision making process. It does also cause people to double down. The people that are wrong, need to admit they’re wrong though, or we can’t work to fix the problems. They rarely seem to admit they’re wrong. No one wants to eat their pride these days. No one wants to readily admit things they can get in trouble for and ostracized for, besides the gloaters rubbing it in their faces.
Here’s where she is wrong overall. Getting something wrong can be a moral failing. It depends why you got it wrong and how you got it wrong. If you’re not formulating an opinion on something with fairness, especially a serious health issue like Covid and the Covid Vaccines, then you are failing morally. You’re protecting your feelings based opinions over what’s right or at least trying to figure out what’s right.
AMNESTY DENIED — You can get things wrong due to a moral failing. People these days are such ideological and party fools that they defend their side and their opinions at all costs. They put these feelings based opinions above all else, even including the health of others, or themselves. There is no place for that when dealing with major public health issues, but at the same time it seems to be pervasive in public health discussions.

“We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips. But we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.

Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.”

The willful purveyors of misinformation on all sides, or just the ones the powers that be deemed willful purveyors of misinformation? There is a big difference. If you’re now saying, the willful purveyors of actual misinformation should not get amnesty, then what’s the point of this piece? Now you’re just coming off a willfully ignorant person that isn’t aware of the amount of actual misinformation that has been told to the general public left and right without the defense of, we did things because we didn’t know all the info but had to act. Toxic forgiveness (can’t take credit for this term) is not a good trait Em.
AMNESTY DENIED — Amnesty denied to the willful purveyors of misinformation and disinformation. Even Emily agrees on this one! She just seems blissfully unaware of how many people are purveying bad information with bad intent or bad rationale. Mrs. Oster didn’t need the rhetoric thrown at her for her ideas, but we don’t need to just “move on” and ignore how, why, and with what intent decisions were made and the public was informed. People who misled purposefully, should be held accountable. The Pandemic is causing many problems we still need to solve by the way. I know President Biden said it was over on 60 Minutes recently, but it is not.
Notice she brought up another softball, blueberry muffin example, closed beaches? How about when they told us you can’t get Covid if you get the Covid Vaccine, which seems to be turning out much more harmful than what we were told? Is that not a great example?

“Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.”

We do really need to adapt our education system to the current times. This could be a good time to reanalyze how things are done in that department. Health matters though. In fact it matters more than literally everything, so it’s odd to me she seems to want to gloss over that so cavalierly. Maybe she’s never heard of Long Haul Covid. Someone send her a Tweet to let her know about it.

“Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.”

Earth to Emily! She seems to be missing some important points here. She is indeed very fond of all vaccines, including the Covid Vaccines according to her Twitter Account. Routine childhood vaccinations are not only down because of “neglected healthcare.” They’re down as a result of the Covid Vaccines as well, and not simply because of the poor messaging, which is kind of fluffy say nothing pretend to say something statement. Michelle Day, M.D., a pediatrician at Henry Ford Health says, “I’ve also seen hesitancy and misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines and that has trickled into hesitancy and misinformation about other vaccines that we’ve been routinely offering for decades.”₁₆ Let me help Dr. Day out, some misinformation, but some information too. Let’s not stop for a second to wonder why only 33.2% of people in the United States have had a COVID-19 Booster (at least 3 shots) while Flu Vaccine numbers stay steady (as of 2021). Perhaps something more is going on. I know my many injured family and friends would have an opinion as to why the booster rates are so low (they’re not getting another shot that’s for sure). These injuries are causing some people to not have their kids get vaccinated. They’re starting to question vaccine safety for the first time ever. They wonder if the government, media, and social media, who censor injuries and while telling us reality is something different than reality, have done the same in the past with other vaccines. If maybe the vaccine injury reporting system and compensation program is meant to look like something helpful, but was set up to undermine the injured.
You can’t bring the rates back up without addressing the Covid Vaccine Injuries, or just waiting for this generation to die off so the next one can be ignorant to what happened during this pandemic. Let’s just ignore the lies, ignore the injuries, and give everyone amnesty and push mandates. Genius! If you think that’s going to fly after this, you’re not paying attention lady. How could you be so tone deaf? It doesn’t start with amnesty. It starts with building back all the trust that was eroded during this pandemic and people being held accountable. Making another authoritarian move to force mandates is the opposite of what they should do.

“The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.“

One reasonable person might argue, allowing the atrocities and lies from the past to go unpunished provides no deterrent for them to happen again and again. I’m sure you tell others to not dwell on history, even when those people may be consumed with something that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago. This just happened and is still happening! No one has been held accountable. Not a single person that we know. Nothing has been fixed. We will not dwell on it when it’s dealt with swiftly and justly, not a second sooner.
AMNESTY DENIED — Let’s hold people accountable first while we work to move forward. Not punishing those that deserve it only emboldens them more, or people in the future in those positions to do it again or do worse. Not all the mistakes were tough calls with little information. That’s utter rubbish. That’s an absurd belief if you haven’t been in a coma the last 3 years.

Here are some real examples, not the My Little Pony examples Emily provided, of things that happened or were said during the pandemic that don’t deserve amnesty (this list is VERY abbreviated).

United States President Joe Biden stated the COVID-19 Pandemic was over. (9/18/22)
Biden falsely stated that “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.” (11/1/2021)
United States President Donald Trump pretended COVID wasn’t too serious and then used ‘the whole Monoclonal Antibody supply on the east coast’ for himself when he contracted COVID. Never forget, Herman Cain died after getting COVID at one of Trump’s ill advised maskless rallies.
Trump also “encouraged his top health officials to study the injection of bleach (disinfectant) into the human body as a means of fighting COVID.” Something he could have said privately and not publicly, or not at all.
The World Health Organization (WHO) took 1.5-2 years to admit that COVID-19 is airborne. Not for good reasons it seems.
Zoe Kleinman, of the BBC, wrote an article shamelessly boasting of her contribution to censorship on Facebook of the Covid Vaccine Injured. What a sweetheart!
Brandy Zadrozny, who writes for NBC News, wrote an article entitled, “COVID vaccines for children are coming. So is misinformation” in which she gaslighted a paralyzed little girl, Maddie de Garay, who was injured by the Covid Vaccine in the Pfizer Trials. She cares about her feelings on vaccines more than the health of this girl, or anyone else. What else am I supposed to believe?
Speaking of Maddie de Garay, Pfizer to this day has not corrected her vaccine injury listed in the trials. It’s listed as a stomach ache, when she’s paralyzed and using a feeding tube. Amnesty? I don’t think so.
Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a journalist for The New Yorker, purposely left out most important detail of Heidi Ferrer’s suicide, her Covid Vaccine Injury, in an article he wrote. He was told this piece of information by her late husband, but decided to pass on publishing it. His piece was not at a loss for words, just like this piece isn’t.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) originally stated the Covid-19 Spike Protein produced by mRNA vaccines didn’t last long in the body. In the “middle of the night” on July 22-23, 2022, they simply erased that on the website page it was on. No correction announcement.
Dr. Brix said in July of 2022, “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines …” Amnesty is not deserved for people that lie to us, even if they don’t actually know. History is full of this and many times it works out horribly (cigarettes, DDT, etc.). At the same time, this is difficult. People like Dr. Brix won’t speak up if they don’t think they have some rope. It might make it difficult to learn everything that’s happened if people stay silent. Whistleblowers needed.
Fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear a face mask or stay 6 feet away from others in most settings, whether outdoors or indoors, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in updated public health guidance” in May of 2021. This didn’t make sense at all, as less than half of the population were fully vaccinated at this point. It just seemed like a carrot being held out to try to coerce people to get vaccinated.
Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming COVID-19 was man-made. Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus. This is the least of the censorship going on from all the main social media companies: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, and Twitter. They all deserve what’s coming to them.
The Bivalent, current, COVID Vaccine was only tested on 8 mice before released to the public. … There’s no way causing the body to create two different spike proteins could cause more problems so we don’t need to retest the vax. It’s super duper safe, remember? What a racket these people have …
Dr. Fauci says “If you’re vaccinated, you don’t have a risk and that’s the reason why we say it’s simple as black and white, you’re vaccinated you’re safe, and you’re unvaccinated, you’re at risk. Simple as that.” As seen on MSNBC while talking about the Covid Vaccines. Posted on YouTube on 6/22/21.
Paxlovid effectiveness has been called into question recently, as well as the frequency of viral rebound, as well as the frequency of certain side effects. Pfizer’s Trial viral rebound numbers of 1-2% and bad taste in mouth side effect of 5.6% seem VASTLY off in the real world. Fauci, Walensky, and Biden have all had rebound. Can the regulators ask some questions?
Biden saying “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated” to try to pit people against each other and shame people into getting vaccinated. Dr. Walenksy said the same.
Moderna’s former CEO, who recently left, Stephane Bancel received a “golden parachute” of nearly $1 billion. Yes you read that right and it’s not a typo! His parting reward was $926.5 million. He knew when to get out.
Whistleblower for Pfizer Trials. … Ehhh, big deallllll.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky of the CDC said, “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”
Handling of the elderly when sick with Covid, namely sending them back to the nursing homes from hospitals to recover where they infected many others. Many of whom later died. A few Governors did this, one being Governor Cuomo of New York, without any accountability or liability, yet. His aides also tried to hide the death toll. No one has been punished to my knowledge.
The FDA wanted 75 years, or until 2097, to release 450,000 pages of Pfizer COVID Vaccine Safety Data. A judge said you have 8 months. Of course that seems more than fair as the FDA took less than 4 months to review the documents and approve the Pfizer COVID Vaccine. Seems suspicious that our government health agencies want to keep information from the public and for so long.
The CDC had to be sued after refusing to release V Safe Vaccine Injury Data. What the heck could be the possibly be the justification for that?

Not everyone was in the dark when they said what they said or did what they did, or at least had to be (some want to be in the dark, but that’s not excusable either). To pretend no one knew anything thus it’s ok, is to say don’t investigate what people knew, when they knew it, and what lies they told us for what reasons. If one made decisions or declarations in a very ideological opinionated unfair agenda driven way, do they really deserve amnesty? Applying a blanket amnesty to the totality of the situation believing they didn’t know so you can’t penalize the ignorance, the people in power did the best they could, the people in power were as honest as they could reasonably be, and did everything purely with the best interest of the people is more like a wish and a prayer than reality.

AMNESTY DENIED — The ludicrous notion of blanket amnesty has been struck down with the full rigor of all of the Covid Castaways Staff, which is just me. It wasn’t all just lack of knowledge and people doing their honest best. This seems obvious to me and many others, but Emily seems agenda driven. When COVID Long Haulers and the COVID Vaccine Injuries are embraced and not ignored, then we can move forward … anddd with a couple “heads on some sticks” anddd cash anddd major reform anddd an end to crony capitalism anddd government transparency anddd media not bought and paid for anddd the government not instructing social media what to censor … AMNESTY DENIED Emily!

Sources: