Vincent J. Curtis
28 Dec 20
After nearly ten months, you’d think we'd be flooded with studies showing the efficacy of lockdown measures. Which ones work, and which ones don’t help at all. We’re constantly told about “the science,” well, where are the studies proving the hypotheses of the spring actually worked in practice?
There aren’t any! In April, a study (co-authored by Dr. Scott Atlas) was issued that showed that after two weeks, lockdowns begin to act perversely, causing the loss of more life-years than saved by preventing transmission of the virus. This was borne out tragically in British Columbia, where the excess deaths from drug overdoses alone are almost double the deaths from COVID-19. Otherwise, there have been no studies that prove that closing or restricting bars and restaurants, fitness clubs, barbershops, hair salons, parks and outdoor facilities, the visiting of family, etc. actually does anything significant in reducing transmission.
We are justified in expecting quantitative results, as the April study was. Science is supposed to be provable, and, in the case at hand, quantifiable. But the people telling us that we can’t group in sizes larger than five, have yet to provide either the math or the studies which justify their allegedly scientific conclusions.
Looking at the cases curve, I see no proof that lockdowns did anything to change the course of the pandemic. In fact, it appears that lockdowns tend to promote transmission, at least initially. This rise of 23 % that occurred in Hamilton, ON, over the last five days, occurs as people begin lockdown in “grey zone” tightness.
How long will the media tolerate hand-waving by the health people before they demand to see the details of how their draconian control decisions were reached?
Neil Ferguson was exposed as an academic fraud not by challenging his pandemic forecasts, but because he was caught visiting his mistress in defiance of his own “scientific” advice. But we’re still doing the lockdowns he designed!!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment