The present Covid-inspired forced lockdowns on business and school
closures are and have been counterproductive, not sustainable and are,
quite frankly, meritless and unscientific. They have been disastrous and
just plain wrong! There has been no good reason for this. These
unparalleled public health actions have been enacted for a virus with an
infection mortality rate (IFR) roughly similar (or likely lower once
all infection data are collected) 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%). Let me write this
again, 0.05%.
Can one even imagine the implementation
of such draconian regulations for the annual flu? Of course not! Not
satisfied with the current and well-documented failures of lockdowns,
our leaders are inexplicably doubling and tripling down and introducing
or even hardening punitive lockdowns and constraints. They are locking
us down ‘harder.’ Indeed, an illustration of the spurious need for these
ill-informed actions is that they are being done in the face of clear
scientific evidence showing that during strict prior societal lockdowns,
school lockdowns, mask mandates, and additional societal restrictions,
the number of positive cases went up! No one can point to any instance
where lockdowns have worked in this Covid pandemic.
It is also noteworthy that these irrational and unreasonable
restrictive actions are not limited to any one jurisdiction such as the
US, but shockingly have occurred across the globe. It is stupefying as
to why governments, whose primary roles are to protect their citizens,
are taking these punitive actions despite the compelling evidence that
these policies are misdirected and very harmful; causing palpable harm
to human welfare on so many levels. It’s tantamount to insanity what
governments have done to their populations and largely based on no
scientific basis. None!
In this, we have lost our civil liberties and
essential rights, all based on spurious ‘science’ or worse, opinion, and
this erosion of fundamental freedoms and democracy is being championed
by government leaders who are disregarding the Constitutional (USA) and
Charter (Canada) limits to their right to make and enact policy. These
unconstitutional and unprecedented restrictions have taken a staggering
toll on our health and well-being and also target the very precepts of
democracy; particularly given the fact that this viral pandemic is no
different in overall impact on society than any previous pandemics.
There is simply no defensible rationale to treat this pandemic any
differently.
There is absolutely no reason to lock down, constrain and harm
ordinarily healthy, well, and younger or middle-aged members of the
population irreparably; the very people who will be expected to help
extricate us from this factitious nightmare and to help us survive the
damages caused by possibly the greatest self-inflicted public health
fiasco ever promulgated on societies. There is no reason to continue
this illogical policy that is doing far greater harm than good. Never in
human history have we done this and employed such overtly oppressive
restrictions with no basis. A fundamental tenet of public health
medicine is that those with actual disease or who are at great risk of
contracting disease are quarantined, not people with low disease risk;
not the well!
This seems to have been ignored by an embarrassingly large
number of health experts upon whom our politicians rely for advice.
Rather we should be using a more ‘targeted’ (population-specific age and
risk) approach in relation to the implementation of public health
measures as opposed to the inelegant and shotgun tactics being forced
upon us now. Optimally, the key elements for modern public health
include refraining from causing societal disruption (or at most,
minimally) and to ensure freedom is maintained in the advent of pathogen
emergence while concurrently protecting overall health and well-being.
We also understand that at the outset of the pandemic there was little
to no reliable information regarding SARS CoV-2.
Indeed, initial case
fatality rate (CFR) reports were staggeringly high and so it made sense,
earlier, to impose strict lockdowns and other measures until such a
time as the danger passed or we understood more clearly the nature of
this virus, the data, and how it might be managed. But why would we
continue this way and for so long once the factual characteristics of
this virus became evident and as alluded to above, we finally realized
that its infection fatality rate (IFR) which is a more accurate and
realistic reflection of mortality than CFR, was really no worse than
annual influenza? Governments and medical experts continuing to cite CFR
are deeply deceitful and erroneous and meant to scare populations with
an exaggerated risk of death. The prevailing opinion of our experts and
politicians seems to be to “stop Covid at all costs.”
If so, this is a
highly destructive, illogical, and unsound policy and flies in the face
of all accepted concepts related to modern public health medicine.
Unfortunately, it seems that our political leadership is still bound to
following the now debunked and discredited models of pandemic
progression, the most injurious and impactful model having been released
upon the world in the form of the Imperial College Ferguson model that
was based on untested fictional projections and assumptions that have
been flat wrong. These models used inaccurate input and were fatally
flawed.
How Did We Get Here?
Let us start with a core position that just because there is an
emergency situation, if we cannot stop it, this does not provide a
rationale for instituting strategies that have no effect or are even
worse. We have to fight the concept that if there’s truly nothing we can
do to alter the course of a situation (e.g., disease), we still have to
do something even if it’s ineffective!
Moreover, we do not implement a
public health policy that is catastrophic and not working, and then
continue its implementation knowing it is disastrous. Let us also start
with the basic fact that the government bureaucrats and their medical
experts deceived the public by failing to explain in the beginning that
everyone is not at equal risk of severe outcome if infected. This is a
key Covid omission and this omission has been used tacitly and
wordlessly to drive hysteria and fear. Indeed, the public still does not
understand this critically important distinction.
The vast majority of
people are at little if any risk of severe illness and yet these very
people are needlessly cowering in fear because of misinformation and,
sadly, disinformation. Yet, lockdowns did nothing to change the
trajectory of this pandemic, anywhere! Indeed, it’s highly probable that
if lockdowns did anything at all to change the course of the pandemic,
they extended our time of suffering.
What are The Effects of Lockdowns on the General Population?
On the basis of actuarial and real-time data we know that there are
tremendous harms caused by these unprecedented lockdowns and school
closures. These strategies have devastated the most vulnerable among us –
the poor – who are now worse off. It has hit the African-American,
Latino, and South Asian communities devastatingly. Lockdowns and
especially the extended ones have been deeply destructive. There is
absolutely no reason to even quarantine those up to 70 years old.
Readily accessible data show there is near 100% probability of survival
from Covid for those 70 and under. This is why the young and healthiest
among us should be ‘allowed’ to become infected naturally, and spread
the virus among themselves. This is not heresy. It is classic
biology and modern public health medicine! And yes, we are referring to
‘herd immunity,’ the latter condition which for reasons that are beyond
logic is being touted as a dangerous policy despite the fact that herd
immunity has protected us from millions of viruses for tens of thousands
of years.
Those in the low to no risk categories must live reasonably
normal lives with sensible common-sense precautions (while doubling and
tripling down with strong protections of the high-risk persons and
vulnerable elderly), and they can become a case ‘naturally’ as they are
at almost zero risk of subsequent illness or death. This approach could
have helped bring the pandemic to an end much more rapidly as noted
above, and we also hold that the immunity developed from a natural
infection is likely much more robust and stable than anything that could
be developed from a vaccine. In following this optimal approach, we
will actually protect the highest at risk amongst us.
Where has Common Sense and True Scientific Thought Gone?
There appears to be a surfeit of panic but a paucity of logic and
common sense when it comes to advising our politicians and the public in
relation to the pandemic. We hear often misleading information from
hundreds of individuals who either hold themselves out as being
infallible medical experts or are crowned as such by mainstream media.
And we are bombarded relentlessly with their ill-informed, often
illogical, and unempirical advice on a 24/7 basis.
Much of the advice
can only be described as being intellectually dishonest, absurd,
untethered from reality and devoid of common sense. They exhibit a kind
of academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance that ignores key data or
facts, while driving a sense of hopelessness and helplessness among the
public. These ‘experts’ seem unable to read the science or simply do
not understand the data, or seem blinded by it. They and our government
leaders talk about “following the science” but do not appear to
understand the science enough in order to apply the knowledge towards
the decision-making process (if there are processes, that is; most
political mandates appear random at best and capricious at worst).
These
experts have lost all credibility. And all this despite the fact that
our bureaucrats now have had at their disposal nearly one year of data
and experience to inform their decision-making and despite this they
continue to listen to the nonsensical advice they receive from people
who are not actually experts. Consequently, we are now faced with a
self-created medical and societal disaster with losses that might never
be reversed.
Sadly, when faced with rational arguments that run counter to the
near religiously held beliefs, which hold that lockdowns save lives,
bureaucrats and medical experts act as ideological enforcers. They
attack anyone who disagrees with them and even use the media as their
attack dogs once their fiats are questioned. Even more egregious are the
often successful actions aimed at destroying the reputations of anyone
holding diverse views related to the Covid pandemic.
There is also no
interest or debate on the crushing harms on societies caused by decrees
made by ideologues. The everyday clinicians and nurses at the forefront
of the battle are our real heroes and we must never forget and confuse
these Praetorian vanguards with the unempirical and often reckless
‘medical experts.’ We hold that the very essence of science and logical
thought includes the ability and in fact the responsibility to challenge (reasonably) currently held dogmas; a philosophy that appears to be anathema to our leaders and their advisors.
Current Data Concerning Lockdown Effects
Let us start with the staggering statement by Germany’s Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd Muller, who has openly cautioned that global lockdown measures will result in the killing of more people than Covid itself. A recent Lancet study
reported that government strategies to deal with Covid such as
lockdowns, physical distancing, and school closures are worsening child
malnutrition globally, whereby “strained health systems and
interruptions in humanitarian response are eroding access to essential
and often life-saving nutrition services.”
What is the actual study-level/report evidence in terms of lockdowns?
We present 31 high-quality sources of evidence below for consideration
that run the gamut of technical reports to scientific manuscripts
(including several under peer-review, but which we have subjected to
rigorous review ourselves). We set the table with this, for the evidence
emphatically questions the merits of lockdowns, and shows that
lockdowns have been an abject failure, do not work to prevent viral
spread and in fact cause great harm.
This proof includes: evidence from Northern Jutland in Denmark, country level analysis by Chaudhry, evidence from Germany on lockdown validity, UK research evidence, Flaxman research on the European experience, evidence originating from Israel, further European lockdown evidence, Western European evidence published by Meunier, European evidence from Colombo, Northern Ireland and Great British evidence published by Rice, additional Israeli data by Shlomai, evidence from Cohen and Lipsitch, Altman’s research on the negative effects, Djaparidze’s research on SARS-CoV-2 waves across Europe, Bjørnskov’s research on the economics of lockdowns, Atkeson’s global research on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), Belarusian evidence, British evidence from Forbes on spread from children to adults, Nell’s PANDATA analysis of intercountry mortality and lockdowns, principal component analysis by De Larochelambert, McCann’s research on states with lowest Covid restrictions, Taiwanese research, Levitt’s research, New Zealand’s research, Bhalla’s Covid research on India and the IMF, nonpharmaceutical lockdown interventions (NPIs) research by Ioannidis, effects of lockdowns by Herby, and lockdown groupthink by Joffe. The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)
further outlines prominent public health leaders and agencies’
positions on societal lockdowns, all questioning and arguing against the
effectiveness of lockdowns.
A recent pivotal study from Stanford University looking at
stay-at-home and business closure lockdown effects on the spread of
Covid by Bendavid, Bhattacharya, and Ioannidis
examined restrictive versus less restrictive Covid policies in 10
nations (8 countries with harsh lockdowns versus two with light public
health restrictions). They concluded that there was no clear benefit of
lockdown restrictions on case growth in any of the 10 nations.
Key seminal evidence arguing against lockdowns and societal
restrictions emerged from a recent quasi-natural experiment
(case-controlled experimental data) that emerged in the Northern Jutland region in Denmark.
Seven of the 11 municipalities (similar and comparable) in the region
went into extreme lockdown that involved a travel ban across municipal
borders, closing schools, the hospitality sector and other settings and
venues (in early November 2020) while the four remaining municipalities
employed the usual restrictions of the rest of the nation (moderate).
Researchers reported that reductions in infection had occurred prior to
the lockdowns and also decreased in the four municipalities without
lockdowns. Conclusion: surveillance and voluntary compliance make
lockdowns essentially meaningless.
Moreover, in a similarly comprehensive analysis of global statistics regarding Covid, carried out by Chaudhry and company
involved assessment of the top 50 countries (ranked as having the most
cases of Covid) and concluded that “rapid border closures, full
lockdowns, and widespread testing were not associated with Covid
mortality per million people.” Conclusion: there is no evidence that the
restrictive government actions saved lives.
A very recent publication by Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins researchers
reported that there could be approximately one million excess deaths
over the next two decades in the US due to lockdowns. These researchers
employed time series analyses to examine the historical relation between
unemployment, life expectancy, and mortality rates. They report in
their analysis that the shocks to unemployment are then followed by
significant rises (statistically) in mortality rates and reductions in
life expectancy. Alarmingly, they approximate that the size of the
Covid-19-related unemployment to fall between 2 and 5 times larger than
the typical unemployment shock, and this is due to (associated with)
race/gender.
There is a projected 3.0% rise in the mortality rate and a
0.5% reduction in life expectancy over the next 10 to 15 years for the
overall American population and due to the lockdowns. This impact they
reported will be disproportionate for minorities e.g. African-Americans
and also for women in the short term, and with more severe consequences
for white males over the longer term. This will result in an approximate
1 million additional deaths during the next 15 years due to the
consequences of lockdown policies. The researchers wrote that the deaths
caused by the economic and societal deterioration due to lockdowns may
“far exceed those immediately related to the acute Covid-19 critical
illness…the recession caused by the pandemic can jeopardize population
health for the next two decades.”
Overall, the research evidence alluded to here (including a lucid summary by Ethan Yang
of the AIER) suggests that lockdowns and school closures do not lead to
lower mortality or case numbers and have not worked as intended. It is
clear that lockdowns have not slowed or stopped the spread of Covid.
Often, effects are artifactual and superfluous as declines 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?
As a consequence of their (hopefully) well-intended actions, our
governments along with their medical experts have created a disaster for
people. It means that the public’s trust has been severely eroded.
Lockdowns are not an acceptable long-term strategy, have failed and have
severely impacted populations socially, economically, psychologically,
and health wise! Future generations would be crippled by these actions.
The policies have been poorly thought out and are economically
unsustainable and there is a massive cost to it as it is highly
destructive. Our children and younger people are going to be shouldered
with the indirect but very real harms and costs of lockdowns for a
generation to come at least.
What are the real impacts on populations from these disastrous
restrictive policies? Well, the poorer among us have been at increased
risk from deaths of despair (e.g. suicides, opioid-related overdoses, murder/manslaughter, severe child abuse etc.).
Politicians, media, and irrational medical experts must stop lying to
the public by only telling stories of the suffering from Covid while
ignoring the catastrophic harms caused by their decree actions. 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 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.
Why would we impose more catastrophic restrictive policies when they
have not worked? We even have government leaders now enacting harder and
even more draconian lockdowns after admitting that the prior ones have
failed. These are the very experts and leaders making societal policies
and demands without them having to experience the effects of their
policies. There is absolutely no good justification for what was done
and continues to be done to societies, when we know of the very low risk
of severe illness from Covid for vast portions of societies! We do not
need to destroy our societies, the lives of our people, our economies,
or our school systems to handle Covid. We cannot stop Covid at all
costs!
How is Population Health and Well-being in the US Affected by Current Public Health Measures?
Businesses have closed and many are never to return, jobs have been
lost, and lives ruined and more of this is on the way; meanwhile, we
have seen an increase in anxiety, depression, hopelessness, dependency,
suicidal ideation, financial ruin, and deaths of despair across
societies due to the lockdowns. For example, preventive healthcare has
been delayed. Life-saving surgeries and tests/biopsies were stopped
across the US. All types of deaths escalated and loss of life years
increased across the last year. Chemotherapy and hip replacements for
Americans were sidelined along with vaccines for vaccine-preventable
illness in children (approximately 50%). Thousands may have died who
might have otherwise survived an injury or heart ailment or even acute
stroke but did not seek clinical or hospital help out of fear of
contracting Covid.
Specifically, and based on CDC reporting
(and generalizable to global nations), during the month of June in the
US, approximately 25% (1 in 4) Americans aged 18-24 considered suicide
not due to Covid, but due to the lockdowns and the loss of freedom and
control in their lives and lost jobs etc. There were over 81,000 drug
overdose deaths in the 12 months ending in May 2020 in the US, the most
ever recorded in a 12-month period. In late June 2020, 40% of US adults
reported that they were having very difficult times with mental health
or substance abuse and linked to the lockdowns.
Approximately 11% of
adults reported thoughts of suicide in 2020 compared to approximately 4%
in 2018. During April to October 2020, emergency room visits linked to
mental health for children aged 5-11 increased near 25% and increased
31% for those aged 12-17 years old as compared to 2019. During June
2020, 13% of survey respondents said that they had begun or
substantially increased substance use as a means to cope day-to-day with
the pandemic and lockdowns. Over 40 states reported rises in
opioid-related deaths. Roughly 7 in 10 Gen-Z adults (18-23) reported
depressive symptoms from August 4 to 26. There is a projected decrease
in life expectancy by near 6 million years of life in US children due to
the US primary school closure.
These are some of the real harms in the
US and we have not even discussed the devastation falling upon other
nations. From June to August 2020, homicides increased over 50% and
aggravated assaults increased 14% compared to the same period in 2019.
Diagnosis for breast cancer declined 52% in 2020 compared to 2018.
Pancreatic cancer diagnosis declined 25% in 2020 compared to 2018. The
diagnosis for 6 leading cancers e.g. breast, colorectal, lung,
pancreatic, gastric, and esophageal declined 47% in 2020 compared to
2018. From March 25 and April 10 in the US, “nearly one-third of adults (31.0 percent)
reported that their families could not pay the rent, mortgage, or
utility bills, were food insecure, or went without medical care because
of the cost.”
Sadly, the very elderly we seek to protect the most are being
decimated by the lockdowns and restrictions imposed at the
nursing/long-term/assisted-living/care homes they reside in. Just look
at the death and disaster New York has endured under Governor Andrew
Cuomo with the nursing home deaths and the Department of Health (DOH)
Covid reporting. The Attorney General Letitia James
deserves credit for her bravery, for it brings to light not only a very
dark day in New York’s history with Covid but that of the US on the
whole given that New York and the accrued deaths make up such a large
proportion of all deaths in the US and nursing homes from Covid-19.
Deaths as per James
may be at least 50% higher than was reported by Cuomo. Cuomo’s policy
to send hospitalized Covid patients back to the nursing homes was
catastrophic and caused many deaths. Gut wrenchingly, across the US
nursing homes, reports are showing that the restrictions from
visitations and normal routines for our seniors in these settings have
accelerated the aging process, with many reports of increased falls
(often with fatal outcomes) due to declining strength and loss of
ability to adequately ambulate. Dementia is escalating as the rhyme and
rhythm of daily life is lost for our precious elderly in these nursing
homes, long-term care (LTC), and assisted-living homes (AL) and there is
a sense of hopelessness and depression with the isolation from
restricting the irreplaceable interaction with loved ones.
The truth also is that many children – and particularly those less
advantaged – get their main needs met at school, including nutrition,
eye tests and glasses, and hearing tests. Importantly, schools often
function as a protective system or watchguard for children who are
sexually or physically abused and the visibility of it declines with
school closures. Due to the lockdowns and the lost jobs, adult parents
are very angry and bitter, and the stress and pressure in the home
escalates due to lost jobs/income and loss of independence and control
over their lives as well as the dysfunctional remote schooling that they
often cannot optimally help with. Some tragically are reacting by
lashing out at each other and their children. There are even reports
that children are being taken to the ER with parents stating that they
think they may have killed their child who is unresponsive. In fact,
since the Covid lockdowns were initiated in Great Britain as an example,
it has been reported that incidence of abusive head trauma in children
has risen by almost 1,500%!
In addition, the widespread mass testing of asymptomatic persons in a
society is very harmful to public health. The key metric is not the
number of new active cases (i.e. positive PCR test results) being
reported and misrepresented by the vocal experts and media, but rather
what are the hospitalizations that result, the ICU bed use, the
ventilation use, and the deaths. We only become concerned with a new
‘case’ if the person becomes ill. If you are a case but do not get ill
or at very low risk of getting ill, what does it matter if the high risk
and elderly are already properly secured?
It is also remarkable that
while hospitals had nearly 10-11 months to prepare for the putative
second wave of Covid, why do these healthcare institutions claim to be
unprepared? Are the lockdowns and the resulting loss of businesses,
jobs, homes, lives, and anguish that result, really due to government’s
failures? And what are the reasons for the mass hysteria when most data
show that whether prepared or not, most hospitals are not experiencing
any more strain on their capacity than seen in most normal flu seasons?
Why the misleading information to the public? This makes absolutely no
sense.
Are we anywhere ahead today? In no way and we are much worse off
today. So why not allow people to make common sense decisions, take
precautions, and go on with their daily lives? We know that children
0-10 years or so have a near zero risk of death from Covid (with a very
small risk of spreading Covid in schools,
spreading to adults, or taking it home). We know that persons 0-19
years have an approximate 99.997 percent likelihood of survival, those
20-49 have roughly a 99.98 percent probability of survival, and those
50-69/70 years an approximate 99.5 percent risk of survival. But this
‘good news’ data is never reported by the media and “experts.”
Covid is
less deadly for young people/children than the annual flu and more
deadly for older people than the flu. We must not downplay this virus
and it is different to the flu and can be catastrophic for the elderly.
However, the vast majority of people (reasonably healthy persons) do
not have any substantial risk of dying from Covid. The risk of severe
illness and death under 70 years or so is vanishingly small. We do not
lock a nation down for such a low death rate for persons under 70 years
of age, especially if they are reasonably healthy people. We target the
at-risk and allow the rest of society to function with reasonable
precautions and we move to safely reopen society and schools
immediately. Moreover, and this cannot be overstated, there are
available early treatments for Covid that would reduce hospitalization
and death by at least 60-80% as we will discuss below.
Early Multidrug Therapy for Covid Reduces Hospitalization and Death
We must take common-sense mitigation precautions as we go on with
life. This does not mean we stop life altogether! This does not mean we
destroy the society to stop each case of Covid! We must let people get
back to normal life. In fact, the most important information that is
being withheld, bizarrely, from the US population is that there are safe
and effective treatments for Covid! And most importantly we now know how to treat Covid much more successfully than at the outset of the pandemic.
This therapeutic nihilism
is very troubling given there are therapeutics that while each on their
own could not be considered as being a ‘silver bullet,’ they can be
used on a multidrug basis or as a ‘cocktail’ approach akin to treatment
of AIDS and so many other diseases! This includes responding proactively
to higher-risk populations (in private homes or in nursing homes) who
test positive for SARS CoV-2 or have symptoms consistent with Covid by
intervening much earlier (even offering early outpatient
sequenced/combined drug treatment to prevent decline to severe illness
while the illness is still self-limiting with mild flu-like illness). Early home treatment
(championed by research clinicians such as McCullough, Risch, Zelenko,
and Kory) ideally on the first day (including but not limited to
anti-infectives such as doxycycline, ivermectin, favipiravir, and
hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and anti-platelet drugs that are
safe, cheap, and effective) that is sequenced and via a multi-drug
approach, have been shown to convincingly reduce hospitalization by 85%
and death by 50%.
The key is starting treatment very early (outpatient/ambulatory) in the disease sequelae (ideally on the 1st
day of symptoms emergence to within the first 5 days) before the
person/resident has worsened. This early treatment approach holds
tremendous utility for high-risk elderly residents in our nursing homes
and long-term care/assisted-living facilities, including within their
private homes, who are often told to ‘wait-and-see’ and all the while
they worsen and survival becomes more problematic.
We are talking about
using drugs that are used in-hospital but we argue must be started much
earlier in high-risk persons. This demands that governments and
healthcare systems/medical establishments paralyzed with nihilism step
back and allow frontline doctors the clinical decision-making and
discretion as before in how they treat their Covid-19 high-risk
patients. From where we started 9 to 11 months ago in the US (and
Canada, Britain, and other nations), between the therapeutics and an
early outpatient treatment approach, this is very good news! We must
also not discount the potential damage to normally healthy immune
systems that have not been locked down like this before but which
otherwise could be expected to fight infection effectively in younger
individuals at the least. We have to be concerned about the immune
systems of our children that are normally healthy and functional and we
have no idea how their immune systems will function into the future
given these far-reaching restrictions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, given the cogent argument by Dr. Scott Atlas on the failure of lockdowns and school closures globally and the totality of the evidence presented above and AIER’s troubling compilation of the crushing harms of lockdowns,
it is way past time to end the lockdowns and get life back to normal
for everyone but the higher-risk among us. It is time we target efforts
to where they are beneficial. Such targeted measures geared to specific
populations can protect the most vulnerable from Covid, while not
adversely impacting those not at risk. Why? Because we know better who
is at risk and should take sensible and reasonable steps to protect
them.
Alarmingly, President Biden
has already stated that there is nothing that can be done to stop the
trajectory of the pandemic, yet fails to recognize that across the US, cases are already falling markedly,
even going as far to warn of more deaths. More incredulous is that
those in charge and particularly the ‘medical experts’ continue to fail
to admit they were very very wrong. They were all wrong in what they
advocated and implemented and are trying now to lay the blame on those
of us who looked at the data and science and reflected and weighed the
benefits as well as harms of the policies. They are blaming those of us
who opposed lockdowns and school closures. They are using the tact that
since you opposed these illogical and unreasonable restrictions and
mandates, then it caused the failures, thus pretending and not admitting
that their policies are indeed the reason for the catastrophic societal
failures. Not our opposition and arguments against the specious and unsound policies.
It is very evident to populations that lockdown policies have been
extraordinarily harmful. It is way past time to end these lockdowns,
these school closures, and these unscientific mask mandates (see State-by-State
listing) as they have a very limited benefit but more importantly are
causing serious harm with long-term consequences, and especially among
those least able to withstand them! Indeed, the Federalist
published a very comprehensive description showing how masks do nothing
to stop Covid spread. There is no justifiable reason for this and
government leaders must stop this now given the severe and long-term
implications!
Donald A. Henderson,
who helped eradicate smallpox, gave us a road map that we have failed
to follow here, when he wrote about the 1957-58 Asian Flu pandemic and
stated “The pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became
quickly apparent to U.S. health officials that efforts to stop or slow
its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine
individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel
or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or
athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was
made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was
placed on providing medical care to those who were afflicted and on
sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services.”
Dr. Henderson along with Dr. Thomas Inglesby
also wrote, “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.” Overall, they messaged that
several options exist for governments of free societies to use to
mitigate the spread of pathogens (traditional public health responses
which are less intrusive and disturbing) but closing down the society or
parts of it is not one of them. These experts never championed or
endorsed lockdowns as a strategy when confronting epidemics or pandemics
for they knew and articulated the devastation that would fall upon
societies that were in many instances potentially irrecoverable.
As Dr. Martin Kulldorff explains,
it is critical that the bureaucrats, the public health system, and
medical experts listen to the public who are the ones actually living
and experiencing the public health consequences of their forced lockdown
and other actions. Social isolation
due to the lockdowns has devastating effects and cannot be disregarded
and government bureaucrats must recognize that shutting down a society
leads to suicidal thoughts and behaviour and excess deaths (deaths of despair to name one). I end by perhaps the most cogent phrase by experts (The Great Barrington Declaration):
“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume
life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and
staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone.”
1Dr. Paul Alexander (University of Oxford, University of
Toronto, McMaster University-Assistant Professor, Health Research
Methods (HEI))
Dr. Paul E. Alexander, PhD
Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD, MD
Ramin Oskoui, MD
Harvey Risch, MD, PhD
Peter McCullough, MD
Nicholas E. Alexander
Get notified of new articles from AIER Contributing Authors and AIER.
SUBSCRIBE
Print
