Restrictive local, state and national lockdown mandates set in place beginning in the early spring of 2020 have shut down or throttled back businesses, schools, travel and manufacturing. Services are limited at banks and hospitals. Tens of thousands of health care professionals, medical doctors and scientists have petitioned the UK, citing "irreparable damage" to no avail.
“Therapeutic and preventive measures should never bring more harm than the illness itself. Their aim should be to protect the risk groups, without endangering the availibilty of medical care and the health of the whole population, as it is unfortunately occurring. We in the scientific and medical praxis are experiencing the secondary damages of the Corona-measures on our patients on a daily basis.” (Stephen Kohn, Analysis of the Crisis Management, Germany)
Suicide, crime, rape and related “excess deaths” have been tied by the CDC itself to lockdown measures. Millions of unemployed people are now, or soon will be, unable to pay rent or feed their families. At the time of this writing, the 40% of all the money printed by the United States Treasury was printed in 2020, and the national debt exceeds their GDP, which has been steadily declining since its response to the “pandemic” began.
The University of Oxford noted that states with the most restrictive lockdown policies had substantially more unemployment than states with the least restrictive policies. Simply put: there is a correlation between the economic misery we feel and the level of lockdowns imposed upon us. In early 2021, a UK-based group analyzed public data from the United States and revealed that the states with the highest COVID mortality rates were those having lockdowns!
In March of 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) was among the first entity to recommend lockdowns. WEF justified their lockdown recommendations based upon an Imperial College study. The Imperial College is the same institution which predicted 2.2 million COVID deaths in the US alone, driving international COVID response. Even though the Imperial College quickly revised its numbers drastically downward, and many were hopeful the draconian lockdowns would cease, the lockdowns continued. As I write this, nearly one year later, the lockdowns remain, with some nations (like Australia) doubling down even more. The World Economic Forum was hugely wrong, because the Imperial College studies were hugely wrong. Moreover, from the beginning, numerous experts knew the driving study was hugely wrong.
The Imperial College team used an existing microsimulation model that was created about ten years ago and then plugged in lots of guesses and estimates: what measures would be taken; how many families would comply; average class sizes; commuting distances; incubation periods; etc. Some of these are things we have a pretty good handle on, while others are a lot trickier to estimate. Some of them produce only small changes if you get them wrong, while others are pretty sensitive. So in that sense, take this with a grain of salt. (Kevin Drum for Mother Jones, 3/17/2020)
This cannot be understated: the mental, financial and physical health of the world for years to come has been affected by the decision by the western nations to lock down. Whatever reasons there might be, they’d better be good ones – especially that we now know that COVID-19 has a comparatively low morbidity number “in the wild.” Although there possibly are more excuses, we have been told there are two reasons: we must slow the contagion, and we must prevent hospitals from being overburdened. Since it is unlikely that lockdown mandates can be justified outside these two excuses, these are the two excuses our answer will be built upon.
Do lockdowns slow the contagion?
There is no evidence that lockdowns of any duration or extent will slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Given that viruses have natural cycles, implementing lockdowns after the virus has already peaked would be illogical. Yet, in Germany, that is exactly what happened, and the reduction in infections were attributed to the lockdowns. The same scam happened in the UK, Norway, Italy and Spain. But instead of questioning the effectiveness of these lockdowns to begin with, authorities are only debating whether the decline in infections (real or presumed) justify easing the lockdowns!
Models are generally used to determine the effectiveness of lockdowns. Using mathematical models as to establish something is akin to drawing the target around the arrow: they are invariably built upon the presumption of a certain outcome. As a result, the results are generally inconclusive or demonstrably wrong (as was the original COVID-19 morbidity predictions from the WHO, Stanford or the Imperial College model which predicted 2.2 million deaths in the US alone!) These terribly flawed models have driven lockdown policies since early April, 2020. Dr. John Ioannidis and Professor Neil Ferguson from the Stanford and Imperial College models have since resigned in shame, but the lockdown policies built upon their flawed methodology remain. It was Ioannidis that predicted the US healthcare systems would be overrun. He later admitted his predictions were “astronomically wrong.”
Statistical modeling is not science. Science is built upon the scientific method: one must observe, demonstrate and replicate something in order to prove anything conclusively.
Invariably, because the effectiveness of lockdowns can easily and effectively be questioned, they are portrayed by our leaders as “a part of a balanced breakfast.” In other words, lockdowns themselves are downplayed as the silver bullet, but are endorsed as just one “tool in the toolbox.” For instance, the World Health Organization has urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns as a primary control method, but stops short of providing any substantive statement on their actual effectiveness.
Another strategy is the de-emphasizing of lockdowns as being a cause of economic disaster, and blaming it instead on us – the victims.
“Most of the economic damage we’ve seen is produced by people’s reaction to the virus,” Wing said. “Social distancing policies mattered, too, but they were layered on top of a major change in personal behavior.”In this scenario, lockdowns weren’t the destroyer of economies. Fear and social distancing were. (Source)
By the middle of 2020, it seemed obvious that, in the United States, the “blue” (Democrat) states were faring worse than the “red” (Republican) states. No “expert” could be found who could explain why. “The truth is we don’t yet know with any degree of certainty why blue states have suffered more throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.” If “experts” don’t understand the dynamics of the COVID-19 virus by state or region, what makes them, a governor or a mayor feel compelled to mandate increasingly restrictive and destructive lockdowns?
Do lockdowns prevent hospitals from being overburdened?
Are our hospitals continually crowded, with new COVID patients continually wheeled in for the over-worked staff to helplessly watch grandma and grandpa die together, holding hands? No. Overall, hospitals are working within their normal constraints. Hospitals are businesses. Their capacity is determined by complex modeling projections, and those projections are often wrong, resulting in their reaching or exceeding their maximum capacity.
During virus peaks, hospitals also facing annual seasonal shortages and lack of beds. In the UK, hospital resources peaked in March 2020, then were largely empty by August. This happens every year, and last year was no different except for one thing: hospitals worldwide were given an incentive to report their deaths as being COVID-19 deaths:
WHO directives to medical authorities state that death certification must show COVID-19 as cause regardless of co-morbidity, an extraordinary fact that prompted me to quip “you can no longer die of cancer”. - Andy Rowlands
..but protocols dictate they [inpatients] are tested, hence a routine hip operation will become a COVID ‘case’ and count as a COVID admission if they test positive. We should also note that anybody who was infected earlier in the year will still be testing positive, thus a fully recovered person popping in for routine minor surgery will be counted as a COVID admission. - Andy Rowlands
These inflated numbers are subsequently used to build the perception that hospitals are overwhelmed. Most of the time, they are not.
Amazingly, when hospitals have a lot of empty beds, a tactic commonly used by the mainstream media is to blame it on the COVID-19 “crisis”:
We found some hospitals with significant numbers of empty beds. But that’s due largely to hospitals keeping beds empty as they prepare for an expected influx of patients who have COVID-19 disease. (Source)
Even more alarming: if a hospital has empty beds, it’s also attributed to policies which prohibit healthcare access by people who normally would occupy those beds!
"Canceled elective procedures and admissions are freeing up bed space to prepare for (the) surge," Dr. James Lawler, an infectious diseases expert and internal medicine professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, told PolitiFact. "In regions where hospitalization rates from COVID are still relatively low, this is resulting in more empty beds — which is good. The surge is coming to them as well." (Source)
It is, in fact, lockdowns which create hospital bed shortages and prohibit healthcare access by those who need it!
In addition to ensuring the availability of beds for a perceived crises, hospitals are faced with the need for specialized equipment. In early March of 2020, the World Health Organization made another outrageous recommendation: this time for the use of mechanical ventilators as an “early intervention” for treating COVID-19 patients.
Hysterical epidemiological modelers, the same ones that had just claimed millions of people were about to die from COVID-19 in the United States, took to claiming that there was a mass ventilator shortage in the United States. (Source)
Invoking the Defense Production Act, the president of the United States authorized and subsidized the manufacturing of thousands of these ventilators, which in a few short weeks proved to be a death sentence for COVID-19 victims. They are now littering the halls of many hospitals and warehouses, unused, still in their shrink wrap. Several ventilator manufacturers faced fraud lawsuits, and some have settled for defrauding the federal government for millions of dollars. The WHO ultimately developed a list of “20 essential medical devices” needed to manage COVID-19 patients, placing still more burdens upon hospitals and taxpayers.
Do lockdowns prevent hospitals from being overburdened? No! If anything, the opposite is true.
Why is the claim being made by the WHO, CDC, executive figures, the major media, Big Tech and fake science proponents that implementing lockdowns are scientifically justified, when there is no real science behind it? Do you believe there is science behind the implementing of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19? If so, why?-