Lockdowns are a new idea based on the models of planners, not the real-life experience of real humans.
There have NEVER been lockdowns before March of 2020.
Twenty-four studies - and counting! - show no association between lockdown and dissipation of the virus.
By J.B. Handley
For anyone willing to look, there are so many facts that tell the true story, and it goes something like this:
Knowing what we know today about COVID-19’s Infection Fatality Rate, asymmetric impact by age and medical condition, non-transmissibility by asymptomatic people and in outdoor settings, near-zero fatality rate for children, and the basic understanding of viruses through Farr’s law, locking down society was a bone-headed policy decision so devastating to society that historians may judge it as the all-time worst decision ever made.
Worse, as these clear facts have become available, many policy-makers haven’t shifted their positions, despite the fact that every hour under any stage of lockdown has a domino-effect of devastation to society. Meanwhile, the media—with a few notable exceptions—is oddly silent on all the good news.
Luckily, an unexpected group of heroes across the political landscape—many of them doctors and scientists—have emerged to tell the truth, despite facing extreme criticism and censorship from an angry mob desperate to continue fighting an imaginary war.
By Joakim Book & Christian Bjørnskov
In great contrast to the terrifying projections from imagined models, this study showed real outcomes with real people going about their real pandemic lives. It could very well be that lockdowns work in some settings, in some jurisdictions, and under some conditions. But in a setting with voluntary compliance, high trust in government and lots of general information available to the citizen, such as across Denmark (and other Nordic and Northern European countries), lockdowns don’t seem to have added anything to prevent the spread.
at AIER.org, December 18, 2020
"..The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population...
"... The upshot is that the virus is going to do as viruses do, same as always in the history of infectious disease. We have extremely limited control over them, and that which we do have is bound up with time and place. Fear, panic, and coercion are not ideal strategies for managing viruses. Intelligence and medical therapeutics fare much better..."
There are 24 studies focused on the effects of lockdown from countries around the world, and whether they can effect the spread of virus, for example #17:
"17. 'How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe?' by Kata Karáth. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. 'Belarus’s beleaguered government remains unfazed by covid-19. President Aleksander Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events like the Belarusian football league or the Victory Day parade. Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe—just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million with over 73 000 confirmed cases.'”
Sep 07, 21 01:46 AM
The word "EMERGENCY" seems to have rendered our law-makers impotent. What legal remedies do we have against medical tyranny?
Sep 06, 21 03:03 PM
We now know that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses & inactive (noninfectious) viral particles & therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool.
Sep 02, 21 02:13 AM
Vaccines - "Safe & Effective" is a SOUNDBITE, not a scientific observation.