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, …
So where is the most dangerous place in America for catching COVID? Well, according to a study by University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan, it is the close confines of a home.
The Toronto Sun recently interviewed three epidemiologists on the effectiveness of the lockdowns including Dr. Harvey Risch, who is a professor of epidemiology at Yale University.
While Canadian politicians, driven by senior health officials, are ordering more extreme lockdowns, another study out of Canada reveals that lockdowns are not an effective tool in stopping the spread of the COVID virus, if that was their intended purpose.
Blinded by his own political ideology, Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently claimed that his lockdown orders are what stopped COVID in that country. He was quickly put back in place by one of Britain’s leading epidemiologists, who bluntly stated it’s the vaccines that are doing the job, not lockdowns.
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.
Let me finish that sentence, if the lockdowns worked why does Britain, the country with the strictest lockdown rules in the western world, also have one of the highest COVID death rates. The reason is obvious, lockdowns don’t work.
According to a recent analysis of state lockdowns by WalletHub, of the top 10 states with the most restrictive COVID lockdowns only one was Republican, North Carolina. Of the ten states with the least restrictions only two were Democrat.
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.”
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.
A new study produced by Frontier in Public Health revealed that COVID-1984 lockdowns did not reduce deaths from COVID. In its report, FPH compared death rates between regions that imposed strict COVID-1984 lockdowns with those that didn’t
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 …
The Washington Post recently ran a series on COVID-19, and Mike Fratantuono, the owner of Sunset Restaurant in Burnie, Maryland, responded with the negative impact the lockdowns are having on small business and society.
If the goal of the lockdowns was to put millions of people out of work, destroy businesses and economic activity, increase depression and suicide rates, then the lockdowns were highly effective.