Ignoring The Obvious

For me, one of the most shocking features of recent times is that those of us who claim lockdowns and masks are an ineffective and disproportionate response (to a virus with an overall infection survival rate of 98.5%),[1] are expected to prove every aspect of our case in minute detail – while those pushing lockdowns and masks are not expected to do the same.

Make an error in our case, or get emotional about the damage being done to society and those we love, and we are quickly dismissed and our points ignored. Meanwhile politicians and their advisors are not held to the same standards. They continue whipping up sufficient fear to ensure people demand their own and each others imprisonment (oops, ‘lockdown’), and surrender their rights along with most of what makes life worth living.

As the idea of lockdown makes intuitive sense, and gives the illusion of control, it is easy for politicians, advisors and media to condition a scared Joe & Mary Public into believing it’s the best thing to do. Also that dissenters are selfish ‘Granny Killers’ with blood on their hands – while those pushing lockdowns, masks etc are caring for us all. The totalitarian power they aggregate, rights they infringe, deceitful use of language and numbers,[2] divisions they create and pain they inflict on citizens (incl. Joe & Mary themselves) are ignored – as is the fact that their idea remains unproven and could be doing far more harm than good.[3]

So I don’t write with much hope of achieving anything. But I want to be able to live with myself, look younger generations in the eye and say that, after escaping the fear-driven, mass-hypnosis, I tried.

I also feel sad about resorting to emotive imagery. Ethically I’d rather leave emotions alone and let reason or common sense persuade. But, as neither are being heard much these days because of all the fear-mongering,[4] perhaps it’s time to add some emotion into the mix. Just like Governments do.

Can lockdowns (& masks) really affect viral patterns?

If you believe lockdowns can help slow the spread (flatten the curve so hospitals aren’t overwhelmed), bring case numbers down, reach ‘zero covid’ or some other moving target the authorities suddenly decide we should aim for… well… finding just one lockdown where the curve didn’t change, case numbers went up or the virus (or a new variant) re-emerged should be enough to show that putting your faith in lockdowns is not a sound idea.

Of course some will say “‘ah but X lockdown wasn’t done soon enough, hard enough or long enough”. A reasonable comeback? Perhaps – if there was scientific proof lockdowns work when done at a precise moment, in a specified way or for a certain period. There isn’t.

Again, it just takes one example[5] Here are three. But there are more. Lots more.[6]

  1. SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine (user-friendly summary on AIER.org)
  2. An Outbreak of Common Colds at an Antarctic Base after Seventeen Weeks of Complete Isolation
  3. Coronavirus: Fishermen test positive despite spending 35 days at sea and testing negative before they left [7]

Why might those lockdowns have failed?

One reason is that viral particles can travel through the AIR!

  1. Deposition rates of viruses and bacteria above the atmospheric boundary layer (user-friendly summary on SCI-NEWS.com)
  2. The association of winds with the spread of EHDV in dairy cattle in Israel during an outbreak in 2006

Which means, if impressed by a region’s lockdown (e.g. New Zealand), or their achieving ‘zero covid’, you will be disappointed when, someday, wind or rain delivers a new variant.

Another reason, disappointing to the lockdown faithful, is seasonality. Even if winds never bring a fresh batch of virus, next winter there will likely be a resurgence of whatever viral load is already there. Just like with influenza. Many factors may be at play, including:

  • changes in atmospheric humidity, temperature, pressure, UV light etc may allow virus particles remain viable outside of a host for longer, thus facilitating transmission
  • dormancy / latency – virus particles already in a host are unable to multiply until that host’s immune function drops likely due to reduced levels of exercise, fresh air (more time indoors), key nutrients like Vitamin D (possibly linked to a region’s latitude) etc.

So don’t blame the people, don’t lock them down harder or mask them up more. Transmission of an airborne virus really is not anyone’s fault. It’s going to happen no matter what we do – locked up or free; masked or unmasked.[8] Best we can do is maximise our personal immune health, help the vulnerable make their own choices, isolate the sick, optimise our hospitals and deploy our best treatments (studies collated here on HCQ, Vit D, Zinc and more suggest there are several effective options). Just like with influenza.

Why then are Governments insisting on lockdowns and masks while ignoring obvious evidence of their ineffectiveness, staggering costs[9] and collateral damage – such as increasing stress, depression, poverty, child or partner abuse, unemployment, cancelled procedures and more (each of which weakens public health)?

There are many possible reasons. But here’s one well-referenced reason to ponder!

How many lives could be saved from Covid-19 and ALL OTHER ILLNESSES if equivalent taxes were used to increase hospital bed capacity & staffing (which would come with the added benefit of ensuring hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed in future)?

Then again, if what they are doing is unproven, ineffective and destructive, does it really matter WHY they are doing it?! Surely the important thing is that they just stop?

Or that we stop complying?

  1. Avg of CDC Infection Fatality Ratios: 0-19yrs: 0.003%; 20-49yrs: 0.02%; 50-69yrs: 0.5%; 70+yrs: 5.6%. Strange pandemic? You bet![]
  2. Case: positive PCR result, not necessarily sick or infectious; false +ve rate is undeclared. Death: died for any reason within 28 days of +ve PCR. Covid Vaccine: will not create immunity or transmission of Covid, may reduce symptoms, so is a therapy, not a vaccine.[]
  3. In “Does Lockdown Work Or Not” Dr Malcolm Kendrick outlines how easily unproven and dangerous ideas can take hold in medicine.[]
  4. The panic-narrative ignores facts that contradict it, attacks those presenting such facts, subverts peer-review & is harming science![]
  5. If you believe “swans are white” then finding just one black swan means your belief wasn’t based on reality. Uncomfortable, but real.[]
  6. 31 sources (& account of catastrophic effects) listed here. More here & here. If lockdowns save lives, why are the top five states for Covid deaths all lockdown states? Vids here & here. Lockdowns deliberately avoided in 1957 Asian Flu. Know your lockdown history?[]
  7. Note how airborne delivery of virus particles to the ship is not considered. Yet another example of the tendency to ignore obvious possibilities that don’t suit the “humans-must-be-to-blame-so-lock-them-up” central tenet of the official narrative.[]
  8. Masks don’t stop aerosols (which disperse wider & travel further than droplets) so have little effect, if any, on transmission. Charts here (below vids), visual here (he prob meant ‘droplets’ at 4:40). More here, here, here, here, here & 20 reasons against here.[]
  9. How many lives could be saved from Covid-19 and ALL OTHER ILLNESSES if equivalent taxes were used to increase hospital bed capacity & staffing (which would come with the added benefit of ensuring hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed in future)?[]