September 20, 2020 | Lockdown Skeptics | Source |
-Lockdowns Were Not Needed or Effective
-Children Do Not Spread the Virus and are Not at Risk
-Politicians Caused Care Home Deaths Through Bad Policy
-The Virus is Fizzling Out
“Government policy is not based on science
This research was compiled by a financial researcher and fund manager who wishes to remain anonymous.
There are a few main reasons to be optimistic we should end lockdowns and get back to normal.
- We know who this coronavirus affects. The median age of death in almost all countries is over 80 with multiple existing conditions. We are failing to protect old people and are locking up the young and imposing social distancing when they have no risk of death. We can protect the vulnerable more intelligently.
- Most people have immunity due to cross reactivity and cross immunization. The human immune system is not completely helpless against this virus.
- Herd immunity levels are much lower than people think and the virus appears to follow a Gompertz curve, which correctly anticipates the virus fizzling out.
- In most countries, Covid deaths were 40-100% higher than a bad flu year.
The virus is bad but it is not the Spanish Flu and is most like the Hong Kong flu of 1968 and the Asian flu of 1957. They were bad, but we never shut the entire world down for those. Flus are deadly, the world is dangerous, and we will all eventually die. But we won’t all die form Covid.
Here is the complete collection of research and links categorized by subject. Examine the evidence for yourself.
Lockdowns are Terrible Ideas and Not Standard Practice
Those in favor of lockdown present a false dichotomy. Either we have a hard lockdown or we let the virus rip and kill everyone. That is hardly the case. Lockdowns and business closures are a sledgehammer that had no precedent in history and are not the way we have ever treated any virus or pandemic before. The costs are out of all proportion to the benefits. Many other strategies would be far better.
Here is a great case against lockdowns. How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson.
It concluded with this important paper.
There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical”. Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.
The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease.
The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”
What is the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine? & Law Definition of the Term, “Suffocating”