Vincent J. Curtis
11 Feb 21
RE: Lockdown is working, stats show
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin expression of a common logical fallacy; it literally means, after it therefore because of it. The Canadian Press article bylined by Colin Perkel fell into this logical mistake by casually claiming that the lockdown somehow broke the spread of COVID-19. The claim simply isn’t true.
As my readers knows, a scientific article written by four Ph.D.s and M.D.s from Stanford University (a.k.a. “The Science”) and released in early January concluded that lockdowns had no discernible effect on the spread of the virus. One only has to look at the cases curve on the Ontario COVID website to see the non-effect of the lockdowns and the truth of the article.
The second wave began in early August when mask mandates became all the rage. Cases continued to rise through progressive tightening. Cases rose sharply after the Christmas shutdown was implemented, peaked about four days before Ford’s “knock-your-socks-off” press conference that forecasted 20,000 cases per day by February 14, and has now fallen below a thousand a day. This was the second time Ford’s modellers were disastrously off the mark. You can see from the shape of both waves that lockdowns did absolutely nothing to alter the course of the pandemic. Now that he’s in office, Joe Biden admitted as much.
For a media that mindlessly bleats “follow
the science,” maybe they should actually read and understand the science, and
begin to question the competence of those in authority.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment