NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.
The cure was worse than the disease.
The website revolver released a study that said Covid-19 lockdowns were 10+ times more deadly than the pandemic itself. And they are not the only ones to note this. Academic research out of Canada says roughly the same thing. Here’s a quote:
“Dr. Ari Joffe, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton, Canada, has authored a peer-reviewed paper that substantiates popular claims that lockdowns have consequences. He is also a Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at University of Alberta in Canada.
Joffe has authored a peer-review academic paper titled COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink that finds the repercussion harms caused by the COVID lockdowns are ten-times greater than any benefit that can be perceived.
“Initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2-3 percent, that over 80 percent of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary,” Joffe said in an interview.
“But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities,” Joffe continued.”
One of the places that were lockdowns were initiated almost tyrannically was in New York where Governor Andrew Cuomo threatened huge fines for churches holding drive-in services or even arrest. Thousands of restaurants and other businesses failed as Cuomo kept the state in strict lockdown mode deep into the summer. Now his tune has changed.
So, what happened? Could it be the mass migration of 2,600 people a week leaving NYC taking with them all their tax money? Or could it be that now that there is a new administration, the crisis is over? The cynical side of me leans towards the latter. The more realist side of me leans towards the former. But maybe there is room for both viewpoints?
Back in August, 2020, an academic study found no link between strict lockdowns and coronavirus mortality rates. And there were others which basically said the same thing:
A study posted May 2020 said, “Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic.”
One more that was commented on by the Daily Mail back in July 2020 said,
“Lockdowns have not had a big impact on coronavirus death rates around the world, scientists have claimed, and the health of nations beforehand was more important. Dozens of countries have been forced to tell people to stay home and close shops in a bid to stop the Covid-19 pandemic since it broke out in January.
But now a study has claimed the drastic measures don’t even work. They found that whether a country was locked down or not was ‘not associated’ with death rate.”
And while there are others, I will stop my research examples with the latest one being from the “European Journal of Clinical Investigation” and dated January 21, 2021. Here is the bottomline from their research conducted on 8 countries.
We find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country….In none of the 8 countries and in none out of the 16 comparisons (against Sweden or South Korea) were the effects of mrNPIs significantly negative (beneficial). The point estimates were positive (point in the direction of mrNPIs resulting in increased daily growth in cases).
Can I paraphrase that? The harsher the lockdowns the more dire the outcomes from said lockdowns. If you want (or need) more data to validate these facts, I cannot recommend enough this book – Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns by Alex Berensen. You might not be familiar with it because it was once banned by Amazon. But I digress.
If there were several studies last year proving that lockdowns made things worse, why did it continue? Willful ignorance? This is where the cynical side of me kicks in. Now that Biden is in office, the narrative around Covid seems to be changing. Last week, Newsweek published a story about an academic study proving lockdowns did not work.
NPR reported on January 21, 2021, “Current, Deadly U.S. Coronavirus Surge Has Peaked, Researchers Say.” Here’s a quote:
The devastating fall and winter wave of coronavirus infections that is causing so much misery across the U.S. appears to have finally peaked, according to several researchers who are closely tracking the virus.
While another surge remains possible, especially with new, more infectious variants on the horizon, the number of new daily infections in the current wave appears to have hit a high in the past week or two and has been steadily declining in most states since, the researchers say.
“Yes, we have peaked in terms of cases,” says Ali Mokdad, who has been tracking the pandemic at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “We are coming down, slowly. This is very good news — very good news.”
Some major cities are loosening restrictions on indoor dining like Chicago and Baltimore. I find Chicago’s reopening especially ironic. Like Cuomo, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot was adamant about lockdowns continuing for seemingly, an indefinite period of time.
Some people complain about how conspiracy theories spread online about Covid-19 and they want to censor free speech for the greater good of the country. (I’m looking at you Fauci.) Yet, when there are academic studies galore proving lockdowns don’t work and the press censors them and suddenly they are now being shared at the dawn of a new administration… well, something does not pass the smell test. And when people, thankfully I am not the only one, see that something more is happening, conspiracy theories take root and flourish. Does this mean that every theory is validated simply because its being censored? Most definitely not! However, the more they are silenced, the more likely they are to be believed.
For example, project warp speed produced a vaccine in record time. Some people believe that it is not quite ready for prime time, which is why so many US health care workers are refusing to take it and front line workers and nursing home staff. Add to that concern that the elderly are possibly more susceptible to harmful side effects than others and high profile deaths certainly do not do much to quell those concerns.
That being said, am I proposing that no one should get vaccinated for Covid-19? No. I am not a medical professional and cannot make that determination. What I am saying however, is that it should not be forced upon the public when there is so much push back from the medical community that is being censored. When there are studies proving the benefit of preventative measures, a vaccination shot may not even be necessary. Yet, it is consistently being pushed (and resisted).
And if there is a cure why wouldn’t that squelch all talk about vaccines? Doesn’t that seem strange? (The research cited in the tweet below was from April 2020 yet, it did not make the mainstream news.) Sigh.
Does being pro-prevention mean anti-vax? I don’t think it does, or should. I mean, I think the focus all along should have been on prevention measures that work. (Not excluding vaccines but also, not making them the sole solution. I mean once injected, if something goes wrong, what then?) Sure, in the beginning, no one knew what to do so being extra careful made sense. However, once we were able to prove lockdowns were ineffective, we should have moved on to something else. Likewise, if there are meds and means to prevent getting coronavirus that are provably sufficient we should focus on that. It just seems logical to me and when it does not seem too logical to the powers that be, I have to wonder if something more is going on.
I’ll stop rambling now. Can you tell I’m in a mood? Hit reply and let me know.