All posts tagged: lockdowns ineffective

The failure of lockdowns

Published by

A couple of stories suggest that the lockdowns may have done more damage to people, that the COVID pandemic they didn’t stop. From this study: Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?: The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic. And from a British newspaper, The Telegraph: August seems a tad early for the NHS winter crisis but, apparently, it’s never too soon to start warning people not to use their health service. To be fair, we only spend £136 billion a year on it and they have got one of the world’s biggest bureaucracies to look after, fleets of luxury cars to subsidise for staff etc, so it would be entirely unreasonable to expect any treatment. You do have to marvel, though, at the brass …

Study: ‘ill-founded’ Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%

Published by

A major study conducted by Johns Hopkins University concluded that the lockdowns, imposed by governments around the world to stop the COVID pandemic, had basically no impact on COVID deaths, but a devastating impact on the economy and people’s lives. According to Fox News, the study found that during the initial stages of COVID in 2020, the lockdowns only reduced deaths marginally by .2%. The study conducted by Steve Hanke from Johns Hopkins, Lars Jonung, Lund University, and Jonas Herby, from Copenhagen’s Center for Political Studies came to this conclusion after analyzing data from COVID studies conducted around the world. They described the lockdowns as “ill-founded” and added, going forward, that “lockdowns should be rejected out-of-hand.” They also found that shelter-in-place mandates (if you tested positive for the virus) reduced COVID deaths by 2.9%, but if shelter-in-place was combined with a lockdown, the number of deaths went up by 2.8%. Why did the lockdowns increase the number of deaths? The researchers concluded: “[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where …

Oxford epidemiologist says the threat of Omicron is overblown

Published by

Oxford epidemiologist, Professor Sunetra Gupta, has opposed the lockdowns since day one, arguing that they do more harm than good. If lockdowns actually worked, the COVID pandemic would have been over last spring. All lockdowns do is extend the pandemic. Gupta argues that lockdowns also do incredible harm to children. She adds that the healthy have to stop being afraid of infection because disease is a reality of life. Dr. Gupta argues that the medical establishment should have instead focussed on protecting the people who were actually vulnerable to the virus, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions. It didn’t and in Canada, as an example, 69% of the COVID deaths lived in long-term care homes. READ: The Great Barrington Declaration RELATED: Vaccine inventor: Omicron could be ‘a Christmas present’ RELATED: Covid accounted for just one in 16 deaths in England and Wales in first full week of Omicron as virus fatalities fell to a two-month low, official data shows

Video: Lockdowns vs protecting the vulnerable

Published by

In this video, there is a discussion about the failure of lockdowns to stop the pandemic. Those in charge have tried to explain away their failure with woeful cries, “if we had only locked down sooner.” Yet more and more studies are stating the obvious that the lockdowns did not work. If they did, this pandemic would have been over months ago. Many are now saying there should have been a targeted approach, focussing our attention on protecting those who are actually vulnerable to the virus, the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. In the US, 95% of the COVID deaths involved people over the age of 50 with 80% over the age of 65 and of course, many of those had underlying health issues as well. READ: 95 Percent of Americans Killed by COVID-19 Were 50 or Older In the Canadian province of British Columbia, two-thirds of the COVID deaths were in nursing homes and how many of the remaining deaths involved those over the age of 65 and living at home. Yet, …

Study shows lockdowns did not work

Published by

Another study out of Canada reveals that if the goal of the lockdowns was to flatten the COVID curve, they failed miserably. Most of the lockdowns were just theatrics, as governments driven by the fear generated by mainstream media, needed to appear like they were doing something. In her study, Maria Krylova compared U.S. states with heavy lockdown restrictions with similar states with significantly reduced restrictions: Minnesota vs Wisconsin and California vs Florida.

Study: No ‘clear, significant’ evidence of lockdowns slowing COVID

Published by

While many in the mainstream media have been bashing anyone who questions lockdowns as an effective tool in fighting COVID, researchers are coming to a different conclusion. A recent international study comparing how COVID spread in countries that implemented harsh lockdowns compared to those that didn’t, concluded there was “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measure] on case growth in any country.”

Drug overdose deaths 621, COVID 173: San Francisco

Published by

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that nearly 4 times as many people died of drug overdoses in San Francisco than died of COVID-1984 in 2020. And in just 11 months, the number of overdoses recorded in the city had increased by 180 over the total number of overdose recorded in 2019. In comparison, 173 people had died of COVID so far in 2020. The lockdowns are largely blamed for the dramatic increase in overdose deaths.

WHO divided over lockdowns

Published by

This was a bit of a shock, but it appears there is a bit of disagreement going on at the World Health Organization (WHO) about the benefits of lockdowns. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s boss, has come out strongly supportive of lockdowns (and Communist China), however, another member of WHO has just publicly condemned the lockdowns stating that all they are achieving is poverty. Breitbart explains: The UK’s envoy to the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) has condemned mass coronavirus lockdowns, slamming the “ghastly global catastrophe” caused by crashing the world economy. Dr. David Nabarro from the W.H.O. appealed to world leaders on Saturday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus. He claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved. READ: Backflip: W.H.O. Condemns Coronavirus Lockdowns, Just ‘Doubling’ Global Poverty Of course, this is not the first time that I have reported on the growing disagreements among health care professions on the health benefits of lockdowns, that have turned political. Three …