As I noted back in March, South Dakota may have taken the least restrictive approach to COVID-19 of anywhere in the Western world.
Its conservative governor, Kristi Noem, has been a stalwart opponent of lockdowns: when the state’s epidemic burgeoned at the end of August, there were practically no restrictions in place. Despite this, case numbers fell rapidly after reaching a peak in mid November. And by late February, they were in the low triple digits.
How has it fared since then? Case numbers have remained low, averaging about 170 per day:
And deaths have continued to fall. The last seven days saw an average of just one death per day:
Although South Dakota has the eighth highest death rate among US states, its epidemic retreated without any government intervention. (And no new restrictions were introduced in March or the first week of April.)
What’s more, South Dakota has done better economically than most other states and Western countries. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, its GDP fell only 1.7% in 2020 – the seventh lowest among US states. (Britain’s GDP plunged nearly 10% last year.) In addition, South Dakota currently has the lowest unemployment rate out of all 50 states – at just 2.9%.
One might say, “You can’t equate GDP and unemployment with human life”, but that simply isn’t true. The money to pay for the NHS (and programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the US) comes from taxing economic activity: the less economic activity, the less money there is available. And that’s before you even factor in the social costs of unemployment and bankruptcy.
One should be cautious about extrapolating from South Dakota to countries like Britain, given the state’s low population density. However, the trajectory of its epidemic casts serious doubt on the models that led us into lockdown.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
He forgot to mention that only bicycles hand knitted from Yak’s wool should be used.
So, these oh so clever medical professionals don’t understand that, say, 4 puffs of an inhaler per day produces a minute amount of so called ‘greenhouse gases’ relative to the CO2 exhaled by a human every day. Not that the CO2 is really relevant.
Ah, but no inhaler means no breathing, and therefore less CO2.
I mean, breathing must be a major contributor of human made CO2 for sure…
Well they certainly didn’t understand the danger of injecting a substance without any safety information, or their professional code – do no harm, nor the principle of informed consent, or that there are no safe and effective vaccines for respiratory viruses, because of the nature of such viruses and their ability to mutate so rapidly they stay ahead of any attempt at a vaccine.
Further proof that modern medicine is no longer science based.
“The Wish”
If we go, go insane
We can all go together
In this wild, wanton world
We can all break down forever
I don’t see any advice about avoiding carbonated drinks… I wonder why.
Perhaps inhalers should bear some instruction along the lines of:
“Please consider the needs of the environment before using this inhaler to treat an asthma attack.”
It is increasingly evident that environmental zealots see the planet as more important than the people who live on it. Perhaps they should just ban medical treatment altogether as a way of achieving the depopulation they seek?
The planet is for sure more important as without a planet there would be no people. But what we have now is Planet Blackmail masquerading as science and concern for the planet, but which is really being used in support of Political Agenda’s around control of the world’s wealth, resources and YOU.
You have a point. There would be no people without a planet to live on. What I meant was that tackling the perceived climate emergency is more important than looking after people.
I know what you meant, and I agree with you. —I described it as Planet Blackmail, or often I call it Eco Socialism. The UN call it Sustainable Development. —-Either way it is all about control with the planet as the excuse.
“ to take up activities such as community gardening and tree planting”……What with all those C02 producing compost heaps, don’t think they have thought this through!
I’m ashamed to say that all this green circular unthinking reminds me of the sick school joke: “Daddy, Daddy, why am I going round in circles?”
“ Shut up, or I’ll nail your other foot down”. A variation on shooting oneself in the foot, which is a speciality of Ed the Millipede, who has a few hundred feet left to shoot.
Perhaps he just thinks us serfs will be shot down while he is rewarded at the Davos table with all the gongs to go with it.
Absurdity upon absurdity is the order of the day on anything whatsoever to do with this eco socialist scam. Are we seriously suggesting limiting access to inhalers based on dubious climate impacts emanating entirely from computer models full of assumptions and guesses that has morphed into some kind of ultimate truth? —By the way Malaria and other vector borne diseases are not actually climate related. They are diseases of poverty and therefore bad public health. We used to have Malaria in the UK and Holland eg which clearly is unrelated to climate. One of the worst outbreaks of Malaria actually occurred within the Arctic Circle where over 600,000 people died.
Doctors “Will be Expected to Consider Climate Impact of Inhalers”
Doctors were expected to consider the consequences of overprescribing antibiotics for at least the last 30 years ago, but they kept on prescribing them.
Doctors were expected to consider reducing the number of prescriptions for antidepressants due evidence that they have very harmful adverse effects and due to lack of evidence for their effectiveness, for at least the last 20 years, but they kept on prescribing them.
Doctors should have been and still should be aware the the so-called C1984 “vaccines” were and are life threatening and should not be prescribed but it hasn’t stopped them.
The £28 a shot payment for giving them helped oil the wheels
Diabetes, for example, is not something that people link to climate change, but the symptoms and complications become more frequent and worse for people in a world where the climate has changed
Exactly how do “the symptoms and complications [of diabetes] become more frequent” due to “climate change”? Or is “climate change” in fact a deranged, reality-defying pseudo-religion?
I think the answer to that is: Even the climate does in some round-about way affect diabetic symptoms, how is limiting temperature rise (in other words making the world colder than it would be otherwise) going to make diabetic symptoms better?
Cold kills and if people die then their symptoms got better because they have gone with the corpse.
We must not forget the end goals of all of this Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 which some call Net 0. Whitney Webb lays it all out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLtNxr2jVU0&t=2s
:
Whitney Webb does point out that the US system is bigger than Trump and they’re ploughing on ahead regardless of who wins, but it is obvious that the deep state favours the Dems, and will stop at nothing to put him out of business by Hook or Crook.
I think doctors should be told that they have to walk to work from now on and only allowed to wear hemp…
Shame on the Telegraph for indulging this pseudo-scientific nonsense. So the summer we’ve all just shivered through is the “hottest on record”? Antimicrobial resistance being affected by the marginal change in climate we’ve seen over the past century? Heart and lung conditions being exacerbated by climate change? I don’t know about anybody else, but malaria and heatstroke have not been among my primary concerns of late.
What an absolutely criminal waste of time and money. For every pound spent on “greening” the health curriculum based on vague prognostications about future diseases and some bizarre link to the climate, there’s one less spent on tackling the real health crises we have right now! Sure, changes in lifestyle such as exercise, tree planting and community gardening can often be paramount in improving one’s all-round health. The trouble is, human health should come first when it comes to the medical establishment, but in this case the climate is the primary consideration, with any human health benefits being merely incidental.
Public health services are not climate activist organisations, and they need to be reminded of this!
Well said. One of the main drivers of poor health and short life expectancy is poverty, but western governments seem to be happy to implement “green” policies that have the indirect effect of making food and energy more expensive in their countries, disproportionately affecting those with the least disposable income. If you’re shivering because you can’t afford to heat your home, and if you can’t afford nutritious fresh food, then you’re bound to be more susceptible to illness and the development of chronic conditions. But that’s commonsense and doesn’t fit with the “climate emergency” way of thinking.
‘If you’re shivering because you can’t afford to heat your home, and if you can’t afford nutritious fresh food, then you’re bound to be more susceptible to illness and the development of chronic conditions.’
And thus a better prospective client for the magic potions of Big Pharma.
There is no profit in healthy people.
Yes Big Pharma like Big Wind, Big Solar etc are all the parasites feasting on the Green Policies
“Students will be taught “green prescribing”, in which doctors should encourage patients to take up activities such as community gardening and tree planting.”
How exactly will this fit with this…
“Greens Declare War on Growing Your Own Greens.”
‘There could be trouble ahead…’
I was struck by that contradiction too. How do the faithful (because that’s what they are) deal with it?
There are a few noses that need to consider the impact of a fist.
Diabetes, for example, is not something that people link to climate change, but the symptoms and complications become more frequent and worse for people in a world where the climate has changed.
As far as I know, diabetes and other diseases suspected to be linked to bad nutrition have been becoming more frequent for a while already. While the statement above doesn’t strictly claim a causal link between diabetes and climate change, it’s nevertheless an attempt to link them textually, presumably with the ultimate idea that future doctors who’ll see the kind of increase in diabetes which can be expected go into some “OMG! Diabetes! It’s climate change again!” mode of operation because they’ve been brainwashed into believing a causal relation must exist here, despite no one can possibly know this as experiments with “diffferent climates” to determine their medical effects can’t be done.
That’s also showing in the
The doctors of the future will see a different array of presentations and diseases that they are not seeing now. They need to be aware of that so they can recognise them.
Doctors of the future need to be aware that it’s Climate Change !!1 which causes Health Problems !!1 because if they aren’t, they might not blame them on climate change.
They talk of climate as if its a single entity, an average that doesn’t exist. Silly bu66ers!
Imagine you have an army of 270 soldiers. There is an enemy and fortunately your army can be increased by a massive 50% bringing to over 400 soldiers. 50% is a massive increase and yet your enemy has an army of 1,000,000.
Context is everything and I would hope that our medical professionals are the brightest and best and understand this, after all, they have to prescribe medicines within a context to avoid patients over-dosing themselves. We seem to be in a world where some are very eager to remove context so that the individual cannot freely navigate and judge for themselves.
In addition to this idiocy there was this from the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Notice the obligatory ‘science’ paragraph:
https://www.rcoa.ac.uk/patient-information/about-anaesthesia-perioperative-care/your-anaesthetic-environment#:~:text=Anaesthetic%20gases%20and%20drugs%20also,for%20many%20years%20to%20come.
Environmental impact of anaesthesia – equipment, drugs and gasesThe use of all anaesthetic equipment, drugs, gases, together with their packaging, comes with a carbon footprint. All of these require energy to develop, produce and transport.
Some items, such as face masks, are ‘single use’ to reduce the risk of passing on infections, so they need to be changed for each patient.
All anaesthetics and anaesthetic techniques require the use of electricity to power monitors and medical equipment. Some equipment is used in most procedures such as ECG sticky dots to connect your skin to the ECG heart monitor, blood pressure cuffs to measure your blood pressure, as well as cannulae placed in your veins.
Anaesthetic gases and drugs also have a direct effect on the environment. Some gases used in anaesthesia have an additional greenhouse gas effect. This means that once breathed out they continue to have a warming effect on the atmosphere for many years to come.
The ‘science’ bitCarbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2e)The term carbon dioxide equivalency (CO2e) is used to describe the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to that for carbon dioxide (CO2). As a rule, anaesthetic gases are 100s to 1000s times more warming than carbon dioxide. The CO2e for an anaesthetic can be calculated by multiplying the specific warming effect of the individual gas (the GWP100) by the actual mass of gas used for the anaesthetic and then breathed into the atmosphere.
So are going to revert to ‘bite on this piece of wood’ instead, to ‘save the environment’? Can’t see too many operations happening on that basis – could be lots of VERY well paid consultants putting themselves out of work
Does this garbage ever end?, I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia over 40 years ago, bugger all to do with the “climate” , these people will try anything fgs, pathetic, suppose theres a “company” ready to do such “courses”!.
Will doctors also be expected to assess the impact of the wireless radiation from phones, wifi and masts on pacemakers, metal implants and other medical implants? These devices are not covered by the EMF safety limits used in the UK. A court ruling recognised after a man with a titanium skull implant took Cheltenham Council to court: https://gillianjamieson.substack.com/p/a-legal-win-for-a-mast-objector-in
Gillian I never get a confirmation email through to my inbox? I’ve tried twice to subscribe – checked junk! Any tips for reading this whole article and your other ones? Thanks
Sorry Mr Smith but I can’t prescribe an inhaler, all the harmless gases and so on. I also notice that you are exhaling a lot of CO2 and methane so I will refer you to the euthanasia clinic – all for the good of the planet of course.
Instead of virtue signalling the leaders and teachers of the profession should concentrate on the timely delivery of good ,face to face, medical care. With waiting lists in primary care they should drop the psychobabble.