The World Economic Forum estimates that the Covid response has cost the globe $11 trillion thus far and counting and AIER’s seminal analysis of the costs
(mental health costs, hunger and poverty costs, direct economic costs,
unemployment costs, educational costs, healthcare costs, and crime costs
etc.), places the Covid ‘emergency’ in a sobering light. It reveals the
devastating and crushing collateral damage from the unnecessary
lockdowns, school closures, and masking and mask mandates that will
impact the rest of the 21st century by some estimates. These
harms have damaged the poorer class among us in a perverse and brutal
manner. They destroyed businesses, destroyed employees who were sent
home, destroyed lives, and destroyed the lives of children who committed
suicide.
Yet the elites are far removed from the ramifications of their
nonsensical, illogical, specious policies and edicts. Dictates that do
not apply to them or their families or friends. The ‘laptop’ affluent
class could vacate, work remotely, walk their dogs and pets, catch up on
reading their books, and do tasks they could not do had they been in
the workplace daily. They could hire extra teachers for their children
etc. Remote working was a boon. The actions of our governments however,
devastated and long-term hurt the poor in societies and terribly and
perversely so, and many could not hold on and committed suicide. AIER’s
Ethan Yang’s analysis showed that deaths of despair skyrocketed. Poor children, especially in richer western nations such as the US and Canada, self-harmed and ended their lives,
not due to the pandemic virus, but due to the lockdowns and school
closures. Many children took their own lives out of despair, depression,
and hopelessness due to the lockdowns and school closures.
Our core position since the start of the Covid-19 response in
February 2020 (and which remains fixed for how the US, Canada, UK,
Australia, Caribbean nations, European nations, and all other global
nations must presently respond to the Delta variant/mutation) is that we
do not lock the society down or close schools or impose mask mandates,
etc. These policies did not apply to this emergency and certainly not
after the first 3 to 4 weeks or so. This applies just as much for the
initial Wuhan variant and now for the Covid-19 Delta variant or any
other variant to come, if the variant is not one with an extremely high
level of lethality, as was presumed erroneously for the initial Wuhan
variant. In fact, even with respect to the initial variant it became
clear very early on in the pandemic that it was probably no more lethal
than annual influenza, yet we persisted with draconian devastating
lockdown policies that only served to harm the people. These restrictive
policies worked to ruin and kill (direct and indirect) more persons
than SARS-CoV-2 itself.
It is why leading infectious diseases experts especially with regards to pandemics (such as Dr. Donald Henderson of Johns Hopkins)
never supported the non-pharmacological measures noted above, as they
knew that such policies would be catastrophic; even for more lethal
pathogens (see AIER).
“As experience shows, there is no
basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The
problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary
effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible
adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and
stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be
considerable.”
None of these restrictive policy measures such as lockdowns and
school closures have worked in the past for Covid-19 and they will not
work now with this media-driven hysteria over the Delta variant. If
reimposed, they will once again cause crushing harms and deaths due to
the collateral effects.
The leaders in public health and government spokespersons as well as
the corrupted media are quickly progressing towards endorsing and
implementing and registering of individuals under the guise of a public
health emergency. That our Governments are even considering the issuance
of what have become known as Covid-19 ‘vaccine passports’
is very troubling on many levels. The very idea is anathema to our
democratic principles and rights that are enshrined in the US
Constitution.
The vaccine passports are being considered and/or introduced by
various government bodies which will constrain the rights of citizens
under the questionable guise of safety. These passports are simply
unjustifiable on any grounds, not the least of which is the fact that
SARS-CoV-2 is no more deadly on a population level than influenza.
Ostensibly, the passports are designed to allow individuals to partake
in everyday commerce and “life” with freedom.
There is even talk of immunity passports also known as ‘antibody passports’ with the concept of antibodies as a “declaration of immunity” or “golden passport”
so as to return to routine work and travel. Yet, it is well known that
insofar as immunity passports are concerned, antibody levels in people
who’ve either had Covid-19, or have been vaccinated, wane after weeks to
months.
Hence even someone who should be completely eligible not only for a
vaccine passport but in fact an ‘immunity’ passport would easily fail
the tests required to obtain such a passport. We and others argue that
such will drive the development of a heretofore unheard of (in the USA
and Canada) caste system of the haves (have vaccine passports) and the
have nots (don’t have vaccine passports). Liew stated
“the introduction of immunity passports is beset with challenges, not
least of which is the potential erosion of civil liberties, as travelers
are stratified into the ‘immunoprivileged’ and the ‘immuno-deprived.’
Experts have argued
that the introduction of vaccine and/or immunization (antibody)
passports must entail extensive debate that considers all of the moral,
ethical and constitutional issues, including “a comprehensive assessment
of benefits and harms, and what would least restrict individual
liberties without significantly heightening the threat of Covid-19.”
The ACLU has weighed in, sounding warnings that there are many harms
that can arise with the introduction of vaccine passports, particularly
the digitization of relevant information associated with the granting
of those passports. The ACLU
stated, “Given the enormous difficulty of creating a digital passport
system, and the compromises and failures that are likely to happen along
the way, we are wary about the side effects and long-term consequences
it could have.”
Now our concerns look to the future for more variants that will most
assuredly emerge more efficiently than the Delta variant. Refocusing on
the lockdowns, these restrictions are options of last resort as mentioned above (see Henderson, 2006, Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza).
This basic principle applied to the first variant of SARS-CoV-2 and
even more so to the Delta variant which appears to be the weakest, most
nonconsequential of all the variants as can be computed based on data
obtained in the UK and Israel (and other data). The emergence of the
Delta variant is quite simply not a new Covid-19, nor was the Alpha
(original) variant and sadly as a consequence of the draconian measures
we’ve discussed, societies were decimated needlessly. There is now
evidence out of Israel that the booster shot (3rd shot) is also met with emergent infections.
We were fantastically misled by the media and experts who doled out
misinformation related to Covid-19 and the lockdowns and we were driven
into a life of fear. This really is and was a pandemic of fear, of
ignorance, and of hysteria. It continues to be so, underpinned by a
corrupted biased media. This is ‘panic porn’ driven by a craven inept
media, and the corrupt public health officials who are using the Delta
variant (soon another e.g. Lambda or Epsilon), to drive further fear. We
wonder if it is pure incompetence or unabashed unbridled bias and
corruption?
The fact is that we knew very early on that Covid-19 was amenable to
risk stratification that predicted outcome, especially with regard to
severity and mortality. We know that an age-risk ‘focused’
(Great Barrington Declaration) and ‘targeted’ approach was the critical
and only meaningful approach that should have been used. Then and now.
We argue and hold that these lockdown strategies have devastated the
most vulnerable among us – the poor – who are now worse off. Lockdowns
have hit the African-American, Latino, and South Asian communities
devastatingly and have decimated developing nations. Lockdowns have made
poor persons even poorer. Lockdowns and especially the extended ones
have been deeply destructive and there was absolutely no reason to ever
quarantine those up to 70 years old. There was no reason to test or
quarantine asymptomatic individuals. And in relation to the testing of
‘asymptomatic’ people we can point to the subtle nature of the creation
of an environment of fear. The mere use of the word ‘asymptomatic’
implies that everyone being tested is sick! They are not! They are
healthy people! Why would we ever do mass testing for viral or other
pathogens in healthy people? Readily accessible data showed consistently
that there was near 100% probability of survival from Covid for those
70 and under (99.95%). Therefore, we strongly secure and safeguard the
elderly as our core approach, while the young and healthiest among us
should be ‘allowed’ to live their lives without fear. This was and is
our position as we argued and continue to argue for a ‘focused’ and
‘targeted’ approach based on risk. We continue to suggest a similar
approach for the Delta variant, based on the UK and Israel data (and
other emerging data) and all other nonlethal variants yet to emerge.
This is not heresy. It is classic biology and modern public
health medicine! As mentioned, those in the low to no risk categories
must live reasonably normal lives with sensible common-sense precautions
(while providing strong safeguards to the high-risk persons and
vulnerable elderly). With strong protections of the high-risk among us
and the use of early treatment as needed (for those infected will be in a
better position to clear the virus and be then ‘naturally immune post
early treatment), we can close off this pandemic emergency.
So, what do we know about Delta?
The good news is that Delta is so far proving to be the mildest form
of Covid-19 as the mutations have focused on the Spike protein and in
and around the gain-of-function furin cleavage joint, which causes the
virus to be less dangerous.
This is great news, as those who have natural immunity will be immune
to Delta, though we are seeing some breakthrough cases in those
vaccinated.
Unfortunately, across the last 17 to 18 months, we chose to ignore
the signals from the pandemic and instead we chose to focus on the noise
to address Covid-19. We instead harmed our societies and especially our
children!
We knew early on and ignored it, that Covid-19 was amenable to risk
stratification and that your baseline risk was prognostic on your
subsequent outcome, e.g. mortality. We had strong early evidence that a
focused approach based on age and risk stratification was more optimal
but disregarded this. The fact remains that age and excess body
weight/obesity, have accounted for almost 80 to 85% of the
hospitalizations, intubations/ventilation, severe sequelae, and deaths
in Covid-19. Many persons who have died in nations such as the US have
been overweight with some level of obesity. The importance of educating
the public on the risk factors and the need for such protective efforts
can be enhanced by the people themselves. Had public health leaders used
their platforms optimally, the geared messaging would have helped
reduce the damage significantly. We could have cut deaths significantly
had the options described above been used, especially early outpatient
treatment.
Understanding Covid-19 must therefore not involve the traditional
unidimensional, dogmatic orthodoxy whereby we simply wish to control the
spread of the virus or eradicate it. It remains an impossibility to
eradicate a viral pathogen, especially if it is highly mutable like the
flu virus. We as humanity have learned to live with such viruses. It is
likely that Covid-19 will become the 5th ‘common cold’
coronavirus (if it isn’t already) and be with us for decades, in a mild,
mainly nonlethal form, and will exhibit a seasonal pattern. Indeed, we
have almost zero concerns about the common cold, and yet, the common cold is responsible for many deaths in the elderly or those with compromised immune systems.
We will learn to live with it as we have for other pathogens, e.g.
common cold, seasonal influenza etc., and we argue that this latest
Delta variant is the step toward this largely ‘benign’ relationship with
humans. At the same time, whenever there is a pathogen that is causing
some level of illness, there is usually a greater severity and adverse
sequelae in the lower SES populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged
populations). We must therefore look at this consequence and consider a
more nuanced and finessed approach to pathology, as we address targeting
the pathogen. We can learn from this public health debacle created
through wilful ignorance and the near criminal merging politics with
medicine and not repeat the mistakes.
Where did we go so wrong with these lockdowns and school closures?
The stark reality is that the Covid-inspired forced lockdowns on
business and school closures are and have been counterproductive, were
not sustainable and were, quite frankly, meritless, unscientific and may
have caused more harm through forcing individuals into enclosed spaces.
These unparalleled public health actions were enacted for a virus with
an infection mortality rate (IFR) roughly similar to seasonal influenza.
Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis identified
36 studies (43 estimates) along with an additional 7 preliminary
national estimates (50 pieces of data) and concluded that among people
<70 years old across the world, infection fatality rates ranged from
0.00% to 0.57% with a median of 0.05% across the different global
locations (with a corrected median of 0.04%).
What is the conclusion after 17 to 18 months of Covid-19 (February
2020 to July 2021) in terms of the utility of societal lockdowns and
school closures? What does the new evidence across the past year and a
half add? What can we say based on the sum of the evidence to date? Have
our positions changed on lockdowns and school closures as to the
merits? We can state conclusively, after 17 months, that lockdowns and
school closures were a catastrophic failure in every sense of the word!
With careful examination of all available studies, reports, and
documents that are judged of quality enough to inform this thesis, we
can find not one instance, (not one!) across the entire globe whereby
societal or setting lockdowns or school closures conferred any benefit
in curbing the spread of Covid virus or reducing deaths. In fact, we
find the contrary, whereby lockdowns and school closures were
devastating and particularly on the poorer in society, benefitting the
laptop ‘café latte’ class and decimating the underprivileged class.
What was incredible across the 17 months was that governments and
their scientific advisors were not satisfied with the well-documented
failures of lockdowns. None!
In terms of the evidence, what do we have to offer across 17 months
now to support our argument against lockdowns, school closures, and
masking (mask mandates)? Well, none of these measures have worked and
will work. We offer:
i) in terms of lockdowns, based on our deep study,
we found out about the catastrophic harms (consequences), threat,
dehumanization, and failures of lockdowns and sheltering/shielding (including prolonged lockdowns) (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88).
As an example, a very recent study in Nature by Jani
looked at the effectiveness of this sheltering/shielding (lockdown), by
linking family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and
death records and comparing Covid-19 outcomes among shielded and
unshielded individuals in the West of Scotland. Researchers reported
that of the 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised to
shield, and 353,085 (26.85%) were classified a priori as
moderate risk. They found that by using the reference group as the
low-risk group and when compared to this group, “the shielded group had
higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44–9.59), case-fatality (RR
5.62, 95% CI 4.47–7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95%
44.06–75.19). The moderate-risk had intermediate confirmed infections
(RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82–4.42) and population mortality (RR 25.41, 95% CI
20.36–31.71) but, due to their higher prevalence, made the largest
contribution to deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥ 70 years accounted for 49.55%
of deaths. In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk
individuals were at increased risk of death.”
We found how pronounced the devastation was on the poorer in society,
shifting the burden onto them. The richer among us could even tend to
their gardens and walk their pets and order in meals while setting up
private tutors for their children and teaching pods, etc. The less
affluent had to scramble to find sources of internet, laptops and
webcams for their children.
Micheal Peterson puts a face
to this picture and said it best when he discussed the low savings of
such underdeveloped nations and particularly the populations “in
general, high domestic savings rates tend to lead to higher economic growth rates.
Unfortunately, since developing countries typically have lower domestic
savings, it’s much harder for those countries to weather lockdowns
because individuals are unable to draw upon savings to compensate for
lost income. For many developed nations, domestic savings is higher,
which means that these countries will fare relatively better when income
is severely reduced or altogether nonexistent,” due to the lockdowns
and as such, shuttered businesses and as such, lost jobs.
A revealing statistic emerges in a World Bank working paper in
which it was estimated that “approximately 1 in 5 jobs can be performed
remotely in the developed world. In developing countries, this figure
stands at only 1 in 26.” Here exactly is where the divide resides and
where we failed to look and take into consideration. It is here that
many poorer nations and settings were further ‘hollowed out’ by the
often unsound and unscientific and as we argue, crushing, costly, illogical, and needless lockdowns and school closures.
ii) in terms of school closures
and also based on our deep study and update of the evidence since our
last Op-ed, we continue to conclude that there was and is no sound
justification for school closures given the exceedingly low
(statistically zero) risk to children and very low risk to
schoolteachers (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56).
Children do not acquire the infection readily (including Delta
variant), spread it, or take it home. More particularly, children are at
a near statistically zero risk of getting severely ill from Covid or
dying from it; again, this includes the Delta variant. We have found no
data or evidence to suggest otherwise, despite the hysteria presently
running 24/7 in the daily media and by the statements of the lead public
health officials. We urge them to provide the nation and us the
evidence that backs up anything they report on the Delta variant, for we
can find none.
iii) We also know of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41). We know of the failure of mask mandates (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
More specifically on masking evidence, a particularly important seminal research study by the CDC published in Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) in May 2020 and looking at nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings
(personal protective and environmental measures using 10 RCTs), found
that use of masks did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven
infections with the respiratory influenza virus. “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.
Similarly, a strong argument against the use of masks in the current Covid-19 pandemic gained traction when a recent CDC case-control study reported
that well over 80% of cases always or often wore masks. This CDC study
further called into question the utility of masks in the Covid-19
emergency. This CDC study showed that the majority of persons infected
wore face masks, and still got infected.
Just look no further than the study out of Sweden by Jonas Ludvigsson
on Covid transmission with no lockdowns or mask mandates in children.
In terms of masking children which we are vehemently against (in school
or out of school) Ludvigsson powerfully evidenced the low risk in children by publishing this seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine among
children one to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the
nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was
reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid
and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization.
What about the high-quality randomized controlled trial Danish Study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that
sought to assess whether recommending surgical mask utilization outside
of the home would help reduce the wearer’s risks of acquiring
SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not
among recommended public health measures. This can be regarded as the
highest quality study on the effectiveness of Covid masks. The sample
included a total of 3,030 participants who were assigned randomly to
wear masks, and 2,994 who were told to not wear masks (i.e. the control
arm). The authors concluded that there was no statistically or
clinically significant impact of mask use in regard to the rate of
infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Perhaps one of the most seminal and rigorous studies (along with the Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine) emerged from a United States Marine Corps study performed in an isolated location; Parris Island. As reported in a recent NEJM publication (CHARM
study), researchers studied SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine
recruits during quarantine. Marine recruits at Parris Island (n=1,848 of
3,143 eligible recruits) who volunteered underwent a 2-week quarantine
at home that was followed by a 2nd 2-week quarantine in a closed college campus setting.
iv) we even know of the harms due to mask use (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32).
Overall, the research evidence alluded to here (including a summary by Ethan Yang)
suggests that lockdowns and school closures do not (and definitely did
not) lead to lower mortality or case numbers and have not worked as
intended. Lockdowns have not slowed or stopped the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Some critics of our position will point to data that ostensibly shows
that the implementation of lockdowns led to reduced rates of death.
However, these conclusions are based on artifactual and superfluous
assessments. We know that declines in death were taking place even
before lockdowns came into effect. In fact, in Europe, it was shown that
in most cases, mortality rates were already 50% lower than peak rates
by the time lockdowns were instituted, thus making claims that lockdowns
were effective in reducing mortality spurious at best. Of course, this
also means that the presumptive positive effects of lockdowns were and
have been exaggerated grossly. Evidence shows that nations and settings
that apply less stringent social distancing measures and lockdowns
experience the same evolution (e.g. deaths per million) of the epidemic
as those that apply far more stringent regulations.
What does this all mean?
These misguided policies have eroded the public trust. These policies
include: 1) a flawed PCR test with cycle count thresholds that only
pick up noninfectious fragments of viral mRNA; a Ct of 40 means one is
noninfectious and nonlethal. 2) Asymptomatic spread 3) Recurrent
infection 4) Equal risk of severe outcome if infected 5) No preventative
or therapeutics available 6) We were not already partially immune;
maybe as high as 80% (some level of immunity against SARS 2) 7) Social
distancing of 6 feet prevents spread. 8) Mass testing asymptomatic
persons 9) Quarantine asymptomatic persons 10) Children spread the virus
and at risk of severe illness 11) Masks are effective against viral
illnesses 12) Natural immunity was inferior to vaccine-induced immunity
and 13) Evolutionary pressure towards virulence is caused by
unvaccinated people.
Future generations will bear the cost of these decisions. Our
children and younger people are going to be burdened with the indirect
but very real harms and costs of lockdowns for a generation to come.
Lives are being ruined and lost and businesses are being destroyed
forever. Lower-income Americans, Canadians, and other global citizens
are much more likely to be compelled to work in unsafe conditions. These
are employees with the least bargaining power, tending to be minority,
female, and hourly paid employees. Moreover, Covid-19 has revealed
itself as a disease of disparity and poverty. This means that black and
minority communities are disproportionately affected by the pandemic
itself and they take a double hit, being additionally and
disproportionately ravaged by the effects of the restrictive policies.
We do not need to drastically alter our society, the lives of our
people, our economies, or our school systems to handle Covid and any
variant that emerges. We are well capable of managing this with early
treatment and properly securing the elderly and high-risk among us.
It is disheartening as to why governments, whose primary role is to
protect their citizens, took these punitive actions despite the
compelling evidence that these policies were misdirected and very
harmful, causing palpable harm to human welfare on so many levels. It’s
questionable what governments did (and now threaten to redo) to their
populations with no scientific basis. None! In this, we lost our civil
liberties and essential rights, all based on spurious ‘science’ or worse
including, opinion, speculation, supposition, and whimsy. They just
refused to listen, refused to read the data and science, and were
blinded to it. Their ‘academically sloppy’ thinking and actions cost
lives, and thousands of lives were cut short by their nonsensical and
often irrational shutdown and closure policies.
We are hearing discussions now about renewed lockdowns and masking
etc. due to the Delta variant which has emerged as one of the weakest in
terms of lethality while being very transmissible. This greatly
concerns us. We are horrified by this prospect and we have shown you the
actual data as it relates to Delta, and not the contrived drivel and
unscientific nonsense spouted by the mainstream media and the public
health experts. There is absolutely no good reason to reenter lockdowns
and school closures or masking in response to the Delta variant. We find
no evidence that this variant warrants masks in children. We leave you
with the words of Donald Henderson:
“Experience has shown that
communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best
and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.
Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance
and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are
critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
Contributing Authors
- Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com
- Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD,
FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai
Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada howard.tenenbaum@sinaihealth.ca
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com
- Liesel Marie Alexander, MBA
Paul E. Alexander received his
bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton,
Ontario, a master’s degree from Oxford University, and a PhD from
McMaster University’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence,
and Impact.
Get notified of new articles from Paul E. Alexander and AIER.
By 
