The green movement caused climate change with its simultaneous opposition to nuclear power and reduction in particulate sizes and quantity of smoke emissions, and so this is a problem they created. To trust their solutioning to the problem at this point is absolute madness.

Dropping a bunch of nuclear waste into an ocean trench is far less dangerous than the CO2. Just build loads of nuclear power plants, with the Feds eating the capital cost of construction, as, we're going to need mountains of electricity to scrub the atmosphere anyway in any conceivable process put on the table.

The study says that 22% of people with Ivermectin got severe problems, but only 17% of all those that got the standard medical "all the things" did. That's actually pretty interesting, because, it means that if you go to Tractor Supply and hook yourself up with the drops, then, you've got a 78% chance of not developing severe COVID for like, $20. By contrast, if you spend thousands of dollars on prescribed steroids and experimental drugs, then, your odds are only 5% better. That premium for that extra 5% is rather telling, because if you believe that ivermectin is junk, then, what this study really says is that all that extra money for the "good stuff" is basically wasted. That's actually the real complaint underlying this controversy. Exorbitantly expensive treatments actually only provide marginal value over stupid things. There is really nothing or little that medical science can do for you in some cases except charge you (or the public, for those on national health insurances), a titanic amount of money for things that basically provide false hope and don't actually work. The numbers don't lie - 17% of the people doing what the doctor said still got into trouble, versus the 22% who just went and got the same stuff they use to keep their livestock going. Yeah, you can rail on about how these people are stupid, but, if you look at the way they evaluate the odds, they are doing a damned better job than you are!

Nope, your bad planning. If everyone didn't do this or do that is a ridiculous plan. You have to have a plan that understands that many people are not going to do "the thing", and manage it. HIV and the war on drugs and all of that had ridiculed proponents that just said "just don't use needles, have gay sex, and don't start on addictive drugs". That totally did not work, because people used needles, had gay sex that was unprotected, and started on addictive drugs. What do you do? Knowing this, one would have thought a credible public health plan for COVID would have considered that as part of its model making, but no, it did not.

That's actually why the public health failure. Planners can never plan in a free society that "everyone" will do the thing. A good plan is one that manages a society where everyone doesn't.