Many people still struggle to accept the idea that lockdowns don’t have any appreciable impact on Covid cases and deaths. After all, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that keeping people apart will stop the virus spreading?
Tom Harwood, formerly of Guido Fawkes now of GB News, tweeted a typically incredulous response to the idea: “Cannot understand how some can claim ‘lockdowns don’t work’ with a straight face. As if stopping people from mixing wouldn’t hit transmission? Sure argue the cost is too high, imposition on liberty too extreme, just don’t invent a fairytale denying the basics of germ theory.”
Even some die-hard lockdown sceptics will say that lockdowns work, in the sense of suppressing transmission for a time, but they just delay the inevitable so are pointlessly costly.
The models churned out by university academics and relied on by the Government to set policy all assume lockdown restrictions work, and even claim to quantify how much impact each intervention makes.
But what does the data say? What do the studies show that actually look at the evidence rather than just making a priori assumptions about how things “must surely” be?
There have been at least seven peer-reviewed studies which look at the question of lockdowns from a data point of view, and all of them come to the same basic conclusion: lockdowns do not have a statistically significant relationship with Covid cases or deaths. Here is a list of them with a key quote for ease of reference.
- “Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.” “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. CESifo Economic Studies March 29th, 2021.
- “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.” “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, November 19th, 2020.
- “Lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths.” “Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response” by John Gibson. New Zealand Economic Papers, August 25th, 2020.
- “While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.” “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P.A. Ioannidis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 5th, 2021.
- “Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behaviour, and small but adverse effects on the economy.” “Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Christopher R. Berry, Anthony Fowler, Tamara Glazer, Samantha Handel-Meyer, and Alec MacMillen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, April 13th, 2021.
- “We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.” “Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study,” by R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst. Scientific Reports (Nature), March 5th, 2021.
- “Full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine (The Lancet) 25 (2020) 100464, July 21st, 2020.
Many of these studies attribute a large part of the drop in infections and deaths to the voluntary measures introduced prior to the legally-enforced restrictions. However, this is typically introduced as an assumption with no robust evidence provided in support of it, and with no consideration of the other possible reasons that infections might have fallen, such as seasonality or growing population immunity. On the rare occasion that rigorous analysis is applied to this question as well, as with Savaris et al in their article in Nature looking at whether people staying at home (measured using mobility data) is associated with Covid deaths, the finding is similarly negative. Voluntary measures make little difference either.
This may seem to defy “the basics of germ theory”, as Mr Harwood put it. But it doesn’t, it just means we need to understand better how the virus is getting round.
First of all, much of the spread, particularly that which leads to serious disease and death, occurs in hospitals and care homes. Forty per cent of Covid deaths in England and Wales in the spring were care home residents, while Public Health Scotland found that between half and two thirds of serious infections were picked up in hospital. Between these and transmission in private homes, this accounts for much of it.
In terms of community transmission, even during a stringent lockdown such as in the UK this winter, around half the workforce are travelling to work, while only around a third work exclusively from home. Add to that that many people still use supermarkets and other shops, and many children still attend school (even where the schools are only open for key workers’ children), and that’s a lot of social interaction. We also know from a major UK survey that less than half of people with Covid symptoms fully self-isolate, giving reasons such as going to work, going to the shops or regarding the symptoms as mild. This means we don’t need to resort to unsubstantiated ideas of asymptomatic infection being a major driver of transmission (which is unsupported by evidence, since, as with other similar viruses, asymptomatic infection is barely infectious and contributes very little to spread) to explain ongoing community transmission.
The idea that locking down and keeping people apart will stop a virus spreading may be seductively intuitive. But intuitive ideas can be wrong. The job of science is to examine ideas and test them with evidence to see if they are more than just speculation. And the science here is clear. Lockdowns do not control the coronavirus.
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.
Ok, so, last spring we had the case of infectious people from hospitals being put back into care homes, and the residents seemingly abandoned to their fate. (I wrote at the time “God help Grandma”. She died last autumn and I guess I’ll never know if the lockdowns were a factor). We also had the alarming orders not to resuscitate people in care homes (I think). Then in December, we had the vaccination programme which coincided with a large increase in reported deaths over the next 6 weeks – substantially more than other countries at the time (whether from cv or with cv but from something else as a result of a compromised immune system or whatever). We also have apparent attempts to downplay the risks of the vaccine programme, including apparently in ways reported yesterday in UK Column News where management reportedly don’t want to know (I haven’t finished listening yet).
Now I have worried for some time that, with an increase in the proportion of old people (for obvious reasons) and with many councils struggling to care for their elderly population (as I recall), I have worried for some time that the government would be looking for a solution to this problem (a final one?). I assumed it would take the form of some sort of voluntary euthanasia which would morph into a duty to die mixed with some involuntary euthanasia (reportedly already happened in the Low countries). But could this coronahoax be part of it, or at least an opportunity that has been exploited? Or have I got the wrong idea entirely?
UKColumn has been a beacon of real information for two years now, they were warning that something would be released that would change our way of life when they realised what the WEF were talking about at DAVOS. Even Prince Charles was determined to stop President Trump and indeed water down UK Brexit as it was interfering with their plans for a World Government.
if you go back over some of their very early broadcasts ie a few years back when they analysed who was at the top of Civil Service and their influence (Jeremy Heywood followed by Mark Sedwill). Shockingly it was the Civil Service running this country whatever party was in power and it started in earnest with the Blair Regime.
Ever seen Yes Minister/Prime Minister? I know it was a parody but that’s the point the Civil Service has been running this country for decades if not centuries.
Indeed. In fact, a certain broadcaster is currently playing back the archives of “Yes Minister” on their evening channel. Maybe they haven’t realised the point you’re making, otherwise they’d put a stop to it!
Do tell which!
Thank you very much Mr. Blair. I keep thinking Sir Jeremy Heywood was in Yes Prime Minister…
I have been wondering if some of this was a reaction to “Brexit” ( or UK independence by your leave). I know big pharma liked to influence the EU – as |’ve said before, they seem to have got my favourite food (apricot kernels) banned from being sold as a food. Fear does funny things to people – I suppose they feared a threat to their cosy arrangement with the Brussels regime and decided to take action
Indeed Mojo, its to the recent Swiss mindfest soirée, that we should look for clues… and this week’s term of the week to go deep dive my LDS chums is:
Real-time Geofencing
It’s important to remind you why lockdowns are the ‘breakdown doctrine’ tool required to deliver the new world order Fourth Reich Reset our Davos overlords are currently way ahead of us with delivering. They have a year in the bag already… since the early 2020s delivery of the shock-n-awe viral bomb play, most of the 99% have been numbed into total compliance mode, ever since.
And though now some of the more prickly middle-classes are finally waking up, out of the fear induced hibernation… time let’s just say is of the essence.
Alison Hawter McDowell is defined as a ‘leftist’ but don’t let that put you off her report, she’s a humanist first and foremost… and continuing being human is a technofascizts road-block to our planned capitulation.
Watch and learn what’s coming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lva8VsYc7o
Every single policy has only culled more people and made them more sick.
The latest being pubs outside only, a guarantee for a nasty cold or kidney failures.
Their stubborn refusal to engage with any criticism and facts (e.g. PCR CT) and to change those policies is proof enough for me now that this is all part of a deliberate and premeditated genocide.
I was willing to accept them being guilty of just involuntary manslaughter for a while, but not any more. They are committing the act of a sadistic, premidated mass murder.
We have known this for months but all these reports are meaningless unless bozo, wancock and the rest are forced into a cold lonely room and made to read them.
Not being allowed out until they have sat and passed a GCSE exam in each to prove they understand.
No, that wouldn’t work. Due of the impact of Covid-19, Johnson’s and Hancock’s teachers (Whitty and Vallance) would just be allowed to sign him off with very generous estimated grades. They have, after all, been model pupils….
It needs root and branch culling of the whole of Westminster. Mark Sedwill was released with a stonking pay off only for those interested enough to find out, that he stood down from four of his five Head of Department posts but kept his Head of the Civil Service post. So absolutely nothing changed. He was still in charge having suggested the replacements for his other posts. Not one mainstream journalist asked why the taxpayer paid this man to stand down quietly but still had control. Not one journalist queried why he was allowed such dangerous amounts of influence in the first place knowing his background. Not one Politician shone a light on to the extremely corrupt, Europhile control of an ancient and successful democracy.
Well, Whitehall, but I won’t disagree about Westminster either.
I’m not a Cummings groupie, but his sacking (let’s call it what it was) was a huge victory for the Whitehall Mandarins
The idea that locking down and keeping people apart will stop a virus spreading may be seductively intuitive. But intuitive ideas can be wrong.
Man has always been fascinated by the idea of flight. For centuries enthusiastic volunteers would strap feathers to themselves and flap their arms as vigorously as they could in the belief, or rather forlorn hope, that they too could turn into birds. It was all nonsense of course, as the most casual of observation demonstrated.
Anyone who still believes in lockdowns is guilty of the same self deception.
And I find it utterly amazing how many of them there still are.
Keeping people apart might stop the virus spreading.
So long as you keep them apart for ever. Living death.
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Czech Republic did something of the sort until the money ran out didn’t they? Worries me to think of the number of countries that seem to be doing the same. Remind me what happens when you bankrupt the world?
(I wish I got the reference… my Eliza Cook poetry book arrived the other day – lovely stuff, even if I did get it on E-Bay. Looking forward to going to a local second hand book shop again if it’s survived – and if I don’t need a “vaxport” or anything).
Strange, I seem to have been under the misapprehension that I actually breathe from the same air source whether indoors or out. Obvs need to return to school to find out how my neighbour’s goings on enter my nostrils when I’m indoors or how the sheep in the fields 50m away let me know when they’ve had a crap!
In theory lockdowns look like a seductive idea. But as the vast majority of transmission would appear to be nosocomial, it’s never going to work. There are carers and medical staff that seed just enough into the community to keep it ticking over.
Add to this, the handful of studies pre 2020 into social distancing, were at best inconclusive, with some link in 0-0.5 metre spread. Essentially, nosocomial and household infections.
… and household infections seem to run at only 17% spread within a household.
‘…we need to understand better how the virus is getting round.’
But which virus?
It may very well be that symptomatic patients derive those symptoms from a variety of different viruses, with many different forms of transmission, but are only tested for SARS CoV 2.
That might explain why NPIs designed for SARS CoV 2 have pretty much zero impact, and why influenza has (been) disappeared.
The real problem is incompetent testing, particularly the misuse of the PCR test and, implicitly, Drosten, Ferguson et al………
I would argue that neither lockdown. Or vaccination has been successful in kicking the flu bug. What I would say is that lockdown had been incredibly successful in destroying the economy and breaking down the family unit even more than the liberal laws of successive governments; whilst the vaccine has been equally successful in creating a population fearful of their own immune system. What the consequences of nearly 20million injected folk will be is yet to come to fruition.
We know the deaths caused by lockdown will start to hit the headlines before the year is out. Many already know the cost of life by listening to those who are honest enough to report it now. What we don’t know is the damage being done by the injections to the immune system of everyone electing to take an experimental vaccine. We also do not know when the chipping will begin as it seems no one is prepared to question why unelected, international globalists are talking about the next stage of injecting the human body. Even trusted GPs have no idea what ingredients make up the Covid injections and when informed patients tell them, they seem shocked and upset.
We need good investigative journalism like Natalie Winters of The National Pulse to start digging into the truth instead of vilifying people like Carl Hennegan, Mike Yeadon and indeed David Icke who have been warning of this step for over a year and in David’s case over 30 years. The journalists coming out of University are an absolute disgrace.
‘We know the deaths caused by lockdown will start to hit the headlines before the year is out’.
But they won’t be presented at daily briefings with charts of cumulative totals going ever on upwards, nor deaths by vaccine for that matter.
The major objection to the idea that lockdowns work further enforcing the PM’s lie this week is that for months and months there has been no lockdown at all. People who need to work are which is a fairly large number. Everyday the roads are full with people travelling about their business. Yes a lot of people work from home but these people still interact at the shops etc. but where I live most no longer follow the rules.
The lockdown is now something that really only exists in the media and most of the detail discussed there bears little reality to what is happening on the ground – but it is where this war is being directed from.
So Johnson will utter his soundbite and life will go on. That the last 5 months of restrictive imposition has had ANY bearing especially after last summer to the ‘spread’ of a virus is risible.
I agree that while irksome the past three months have been a phoney lockdown compared to this time last year.
It’s arts and culture, sport, private association (religion, knitting clubs, the Scouts and suchlike) along with the wider travel industry that are still taking the brunt of remnant lockdown; the only other major sector still closed down being the Universities.
I think it’s problematic when we make ANY assumptions about transmission that haven’t been proven, and that includes those derived from germ theory (which is, after all, is still a theory!). I have yet to see definitive evidence for person A catching (symptomatic) covid from (symptomatic) person B. Association does not prove causation. These studies could have been conducted in controlled environments by now. I’m sure there would be plenty of willing subjects, and ethics no longer seems to be a barrier to anything these days! But we never see this kind of research. It’s just assumed that germ theory is correct. Maybe it’s time to revisit that fundamental assumption.
The slippery nature of isolation itself is a flag to suggest all is not right in the world virological theory.
Couldn’t agree more!
Enforcing lockdowns and “Stay at home” orders requires fear-mongering. Fear suppresses our immune system (and watching horror videos from Bergamo will contribute to this).
Without lockdowns, social distancing, etc., we are more likely to get infected (“contaminated”), but we are less likely to get sick – we are enjoying our lives more and our immune response is stronger.
So IMHO there’s nothing wrong with “the basics of germ theory” but the outcome might be more or less the same – with or without NPIs.
so GB News has hired Tom Harwood who would arrogantly argues against the evidence and/or couldn’t be bothered to do any research.
very disappointing! My high hopes for GB News just took a hit….
Yep – just another Owen Jones-in-Conservative-drag type.
Always remember that a journalist’s knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.
yes – makes him all the more arrogant to comment with no research in the face of at least 7 peer reviewed studies (from people with knowledge) that prove the opposite of his ignorant view
An inch deep? That’s a bit thick.
Another brilliant article from Will which captures the essential, the Western countries lock downs were pseudo lockdowns. In China the only real LD probably took place in Wuhan. They literally locked in people and zero circulation. China then stopped that attempt. There has been reported other localized LD, quarters, parts of city etc in China, but we never saw any outside journalist report on that so very difficult to assess if they were the same as in Wuhan. Still 800 000 fled Wuhan before the LD. China never attempted again regional and certainly no national LD although the virus must have been circulating.
The virus spreading like wildfires in nursing homes and hospitals and the 30% of population in circultion was enough for this pandemic virus to follow the usual path abslutely unhindered by anything attempted as this is an untstoppable respiratory virus.
Those people who claim to be “following the science” need to stop for a moment and actually start doing the science. What do I mean by that?
In essence the scientific method says : if your theory doesn’t match observation, get a new theory
The people who claim that lockdowns “obviously” work – for what seem to be good intuitive reasons – can’t do the science step and chuck out their theory. The evidence tells us there’s something wrong with the intuition here – so doing science would require us to chuck out our failed intuition.
The more interesting question is why such a seemingly sensible intuition fails. Why don’t lockdowns work in the way our intuition might tell us they should?
Do a search on something like “how respiratory disease is spread” and you’ll find links to a whole bunch of articles where scientists are still actually trying to figure this out properly. I mean it’s pretty obvious that a virus is going to have to get from person A to person B and the most likely route is through the air – but is it aerosols or droplets or simply viral particles on their own – and how far do each of these things travel and stay in the air remaining a threat?
So there’s the first problem – simply saying “reducing mixing reduces transmission” might seem plausible, but if a sufficient viral load to cause infection can travel, say 200m, then we might want to rethink that position a bit. So there’s an implicit assumption in our intuition that we know the principal mechanism, and characteristics, of transmission – and we don’t. Not well enough, anyway.
Even if we find that transmission is significant only if you’re reasonably close to someone – then the evidence shows us that symptomatic people are the drivers of infection. In other words, limiting the contact of non-symptomatic people with other non-symptomatic people is going to do bugger all to stop the spread of the infection. It is “mixing” of the type symptomatic person with susceptible person that you would need to limit if the “reasonably close” hypothesis here is correct. Perhaps here I should just remind us all of the age-old wisdom that if you’re ill, stay at home. It’s all we actually needed to do here – or at least the outcome would have been no worse if that had been all we had done.
There’s also the question of what I might term “linearity”. A very naïve way of thinking would be along the lines of; if I reduce mobility by 50% I will cut the rate of infection by 50%. It might well be that we need to reduce mobility to 90% or more in order to start seeing any significant effect, for example. There might be some critical “severity” threshold for lockdown before it starts showing a significant effect.
The people who stop at their intuition, and refuse to re-examine it in the light of evidence, are not following the science – what they are doing is more akin to following a religion.
Good post.
There’s also the “radiation myth”. Most of what we know about radiation damage is based upon bomb blasts and accidents where radiation was massive. What researchers did is draw a line through that to zero.
The problem is that the body has evolved in an environment full of radiation, which means that when the radiation level drops below a critical value the impact drops to near zero – because the body can cope with it and corrects the damage.
It’s the same with viruses. When you read all the papers about masks and infection rates, they are almost always talking about hospitals and medical staff in high concentration environments. Everywhere else they are guessing and failing to take into account differing people’s ability to fight off viruses.
What I’ve found astonishing about the entire process is that nobody seems to be on the ground actually measuring the level of viral shedding or transmission – even though we’ve had millions of people with ‘positive tests’ that could have acted as guinea pigs.
exactly – for at least decades it was accepted that it is symptomatic ill people who spread respiratory disease – so the spread is greatest in hospitals, doctors surgeries, old peoples homes where immune systems are week and in houses where one of the household is ill (shared toilet facilities also maybe)
So locking down people who are well and not ill is an invented ”fairy tail denying the basics of germ theory” – its the agenda behind the fairy tail that should be causing concern with investigative journalists
Great post
There’s also the theory that those with healthy immune systems and who perhaps experience mild symptoms verging on asymptomatic essentially pass on the virus at low viral load and this enable the person they transmit to to fight off the virus without any detectable infection, while developing T cell memory and so some immunity, or fight it off with mild symptoms only. The study on which this tweet relates, hints at what might be going on
https://twitter.com/gerdosi/status/1377649779598094337
By locking down you would then be pushing transmission into higher viral settings such as care homes and hospitals.
Amen. This also describes why the theoretical model of herd immunity and the HIT is impossible to achieve in practice artificially.
Just for Sweden for example it will be impossible in light of the very different seroprevalences regionally.
Excellent points.
Re. ‘The Science’ : of course there is no such concrete entity. There is data and evidence, subject to analysis using scientific methodology (usually as defined by Popper), where the ideas of falsifiability and the provisional nature of every statement are at the core.
The current misinformation floating around is not a failure of Science, it’s actually a failure to apply science and its methodology – thus the reverse process of making untested statements and suppressing data and analysis in order to reverse the proper process and make the apparent evidence fit the prior hypothesis.
We have nothing to fear from proper science – only its misapplication and distortion.
When your theory doesn’t match observable reality, you need to discard it and come up with one that does.
Conceivably that wasn’t covered in Mr Harwood’s politics course.
Covid is about faith, belief and Cult membership, not about science.
That’s why all our efforts were, are and will remain in vain.
An excerpt from Sebastian Rushworth’s latest post.
The observation that logic often turns out to be wrong, especially in medicine, perfectly fits Lockdowns, SD, hand sanitizing, mass vaccination against Covid and, uncontested now and very much related to his topic here, ventilation.
It is not valid for masks though, as they weren’t even logical.
I am more and more convinced that Roger Koops had it right in his AIER comment on masks: the virus is airborne, you cannot do ANYTHING to prevent its transmission and spread once that’s the case.
NZ, OZ, Norway&co prevented that from happening by closing borders early and before this, and they then kept them closed. That is when and where Lockdowns, T&T and hotel quarantines could make sense, although we/they all know that they have also boxed themselves into the Sentinelese corner for good through this. Once that opportunity is missed though, LDs etc. and belated efforts at zero Covid etc. are just a futile, counterproductive and cruel torture.
“This is a good example of a medical reversal – it seemed logical to give oxygen to people with heart attacks, because a heart attack is a blockage in one of the arteries that supply the heart, which means that the heart muscle isn’t getting enough oxygen. By increasing the oxygen level in the blood stream, even if only a small amount of that oxygen is able to get past the blockage, it should do some good. At least that was the thinking.
Unfortunately, logic often turns out be wrong, at least in medicine. As it turns out, oxygen isn’t the utterly benign substance it’s often made out to be.”
“Many of these studies attribute a large part of the drop in infections and deaths to the voluntary measures introduced prior to the legally-enforced restrictions. “
They conveniently forget the reputable epidemiologists who forecast that the virus would naturally follow the curve that it did.
Interestingly, everyone berates Our Dear Leader for his obvious (to the knowledgeable) lies but overlooks the really big lie. We know PCR testing is capable of providing false positives – when NO virus particles are present. We know that PCR picks up fragments of virus including dead viruses or other coronaviruses. We know that the whole Wuhan virus has NOT been sequenced or if it has, the sequence has not been made available to agencies outside Wuhan. So the really big lie is hiding the fact that the virus is gone, as happens with every ´flu after a few months.
Get it? To the tune of Guantanamera – There´s No Fucking virus!
To anyone who says “what about the new strains?” I reiterate my third point – we don´t have the sequence, how can we know if there´s a new strain or if it´s a different part of the “old” one. For a really dark slant on what´s going on (and an expert opinion) listen to Yeaton talking to Delingpole on Rumble. Personally, I think at´s the same old reason – follow the money.
NPR’s, keeping people apart, must reduce all transmission. I mean it’s obvious isn’t it.
The other day someone told me that the Earth goes around the Sun and it spins! I mean, really. How daft. I can see with my own eyes that the Sun moves around the Earth. It’s obvious to anyone isn’t it (apart from that fool Galileo)?
Arguing about whether or not lockdowns work can mask the real issue which is that lockdowns were never necessary in the first place and would only ever cause harm, not prevent it. One reason for lockdown being totally unnecessary and sadistic is because Covid19 has an overall infection fatality rate of 0.15% – 0.2%, which is not remarkable to observe in flu season. This is according to papers written by Prof Dr John Ioannidis, who has submitted reports to the WHO during the scamdemic. A normal flu has an IFR of 0.1%, so this can be characterised as a strong flu, but nothing else. We regularly deal with strong flus without inflicting lockdowns on people, which cause untold levels of serious harm including death and achieve absolutely nothing positive whatsoever.
Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13423
“Global infection fatality rate is 0.15‐0.20% (0.03‐0.04% in those <70 years)”
The IFR of 0.03% in the under 70s translates to a survival rate of 99.97% for those infected. The reality is that the facts make a complete mockery of lockdowns. The facts expose lockdowns as being sadistic and based on nothing but deception, the minds of evil men and the fraudulent notion that there is a virus circulating which justifies lockdowns. That is a LIE. It is fraudulent and the government knows it but they never admit it. They never discuss the IFR in the media because these lying demons know that the real facts make a mockery of their disingenuous stated intention of “saving lives”. They are 100% guilty. They have known the facts since at least 19th March 2020:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19
“Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.”
OG lockdown sceptic Professor Knutt Wittkowski who was head of Bio Statistics at Rockefeller University for 20 years gave this interview around the start of the scamdemic where he stated that these pandemics, flus etc come and go and die out naturally after about a month or so, like clockwork and they should just let nature take its course and protect the vulnerable, if they genuinely care. HMG did the opposite of that. Look what actually happened with HMG at the helm, talking about saving lives when they are knowingly enacting policies that damage and destroy health and nothing else.
Banned By YouTube Perspectives On The Pandemic: Professor Knut Wittkowski
https://banned.video/watch?id=5ec2dda2244ac5001d2a5d76
It’s all a huge crime which they are still committing, bold as brass, right under our noses.
Do we have to question our beliefs in how viruses spread?
I often used to wonder how people caught pneumonia despite not coming into contact with anyone who had pneumonia. So I am going to wonder.
For example there is the 2 meter rule everywhere. But does this make any sense? Anyone seen those island destroyed by a volcano so that nothing grows. And yet, despite being miles from anywhere, go back 30 years and the place is teeming with life. In order for that to happen, seeds and spores need to be taken great distances, either by air, water or inside the bodies of travelling fauna to get there. So if plant and even animal life can travel great distances, cant viruses which are far lighter, also travel huge distances as well?
I also wonder whether or not viruses are always with us in some ways. The immune system cannot be everywhere, and it may be all but impossible for the immune system to completely eradicate a virus from the system. Sometimes it is better to live with something than expend effort to get rid of something completely. Even immune people might carry some of the virus in their bodies. The immune system keeps it under control, but it is always there. This would explain why pneumonia afflicts people who have a weakened immune system. This virus is normally contained, but the reduced immune system would mean the game has changed and now it can spread more widely.
If you put the two ideas together, you can see why lockdowns dont work. The viruses can spread long distances and despite the fact that they spread out the further they get from the emitter, there are so many of them that sooner or later you will take one in. Once it has infected you, it may be impossible to get rid of completely. The best we can do to help is to have a good and true vaccine.
So is our strong beliefs that viruses spread person to person but only with close contact correct? Given the evidence of the failure of lockdowns, I think that model isnt correct.
Also there is the germ theory vs terrain theory argument, which from what I can gather, is unsettled science. The argument that what they call viruses are in fact seasonal processes that come from within, as part of a detox which happens naturally. I think the truth is that a lot of this is still not fully understood, or maybe the truth is being obscured by those with vested interests.
This is quite an interesting document about an outbreak of common colds (it says Rhinovirus) at an Antarctic base after 17 weeks of ‘impossible to achieve anywhere else’ isolation.
An outbreak of common colds at an Antarctic base after seventeen weeks of complete isolation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/?page=1
No. The best we can do is not a vaccine. The very best we can do is protect and nourish our body’s own amazing immune system. Will something one day beat it? Of course it will. It’s called mortality. Does that moment vary person to person? Of course it does. This is not to say we should not take sensible steps to protect ourselves and those we love, which can be done without nauseating virtue signalling.
Indeed, this intuitive idea has been shown to be wrong many times.
Also Dr Clare Craig said in a tweet that this kind of thinking is flat earthism: https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1382406916241039365
And rightly so. When you look around, the Earth seems to be flat. Intuitively the Earth is flat, but of course it’s not, and it takes a bit of effort to explain (to a child in school) why it’s not flat, and then to explain why people on the other side of the globe don’t just fall off (which can also be intuitive that they would just fall off).
“we need to understand better how the virus is getting round.” True.
And actually, there have been some articles related to futility of contact tracing and futility of trying to stop the spread of this kind of virus (main characteristics: respiratory virus with R0 ~2.5), by prominent scientist. So, it’s already part of common medical knowledge.
Also, the case of Sweden, which didn’t had lockdown, just very mild restrictions during spring 2020. and according to many sources, most people didn’t follow voluntary and these mild measures.
According to Swedish doctor:
“The epidemic in Sweden does seem to be declining, Buggert said in August. “We have much fewer cases right now. We have around 50 people hospitalised with covid-19 in a city of two million people.” At the peak of the epidemic there were thousands of cases. Something must have happened, said Buggert, particularly considering that social distancing was “always poorly followed, and it’s only become worse.””
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
In the end, Sweden had one of the lowest excess deaths in Europe.
So it’s not about “voluntary measures”.
Finally, all of this doesn’t really matter much since covid19 is not as nearly deadly as thought (IFR ~0.15% (severe seasonal flu), deaths mainly in very old and sick which are vulnerable to any kind of pathogen that most people are safe from; not everyone is susceptible due to pre-existing immunity: see the above link). So, the whole idea of trying to suppress the spread is baseless. So arguing about if lockdowns slow the spread or not, if it’s due to voluntary measures or not… it’s just pointless.