Just a short post today on a study from researchers in George Mason University, Southern Utah University and West Virginia University who studied the impact of Indoor Mandates on Covid19 Cases and Deaths in 9 cities in US.1
Here they graph Weekly Covid19 Deaths for Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC.
Click to expand. The vertical line is the date that Jab Mandates were imposed, the Blue curve is Jabbed, Red curve unjabbed.
The authors conclude that “These mandates imposed severe restrictions on the lives of many citizens and business owners. Yet, we find no evidence that the mandates were effective in their intended goals of reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths.”
https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/indoor-vaccine-mandates-and-covid-19
This study is already being cited in the mainstream media as proof that vaccine mandates had no effect on vaccination uptake, but this conclusion is misleading, since the present paper considers only one kind of a mandate that could be easily evaded in the studied cities (not the federally imposed employment mandates). The author acknowledges that vaccine mandates in Europe and on the country level did cause a significantly higher uptake. The kind of mandates we had in Australia were radically stronger then city-level indoor mandates for going to museums, gyms, indoor sporting events or restaurants, which could be evaded by going to nearby places where mandates did not apply; this was not allowed either in EU or Australia. So why is the corporate media misrepresenting the results of this study as if it were applicable to all vaccine mandates everywhere? I suggest it is because this misleading conclusion implies that nobody was killed by the mandates because the mandates did not manage to coerce anybody to take the vaccine against their voluntary consent. It is their get out of jail card.
Yet, covid jab mandates had a huge impact on "coincidence" deaths...