We have clearly shown on this website that lockdowns are economically and socially destructive. The lockdowns are a consequence of the Vaccine War Against Hydroxychloroquine and the Zelenko Protocol. The Vaccine War also targets Ivermectin. Now many new remedies are being discovered.
Why consider any lockdown if there is a quick and effective solution to stop the virus upon inception of infection? That is why reports about threats to shut down the entire United States Economy are so disturbing. The candidates are clearly not literate in microbiology and specifically virology. It is foolish for candidate Joe Biden to hold President Trump responsible for Covid Deaths. Rather it was the President’s deferral to Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID, National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases. It was Dr. Fauci who effectively waged a war on all easy, inexpensive, effective cures for the those who contract the virus. “Treat them early”, says Dr. Zev Zelenko before ARDS – Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and other major complications set in. President Trump’s original instinct to favor the use of Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc and Azithromycin to treat the virus was correct but overridden by Dr. Fauci and possibly other hidden powers.
The World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Initiative and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored Event 201 in October of 2019, as rehearsal targeting a Corona Virus. Their goal is The Great Reset. Their Political Power is unknown as of the writing of this editorial but the footsteps in the sand suggest their power is enormous.
According to the Worldometer Website today, November 2, 2020:
United States Coronavirus CFR, or Case Fatality Rate is 236,501/ 9,475,872 = .0249 or 2.49%. This is the number of deaths as a percentage of reported cases of infection for the United States.
For the entire world, the Case Fatality Rate is 1,205,046/ 46,804,745= 2 57%. This is the number of deaths as a percentage of reported cases for the entire world.
Of course, these numbers, 2.49% or 2.57% represent the rate of death of those infected. It is quite possible that those infected is a much larger number , including asymptomatic people and those who just did not report their illness. Thus the denominator would become larger and the final number would become smaller.
The estimated death rate (mortality rate) for the entire United States population should be calculated as follows:
236,501/328,200,000 = 0.000721 or 0.072% which is a very, very small number.
The estimated death rate (mortality rate) for the world should be calculated as follows:
1,205,046/7,594,000,000=0.00015868 or 0.015868%, a smaller number than the mortality rate for the United States.
Neither of these numbers justify an economic lock-down with the devastation and suffering which is caused by it.
Now when you consider that many governments of the world have effectively banned effective, inexpensive, cures for those infected with Covid Virus, including the banning of scientific videos explaining the mechanism of action, both for Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc and Ivermectin, so the charade becomes doubly malicious. The World Wide Medical Plan almost seems diabolical, since the authorities know their science and are obviously denying the truth.
For those who are most vulnerable to the virus, this is a No Exit policy. It is a death trap and no way out. Hence the violation of a Biblical Prohibition:
******************************************************************************************
- Article
- Open Access
- Published:
Substantial underestimation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States
Accurate estimates of the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical to informing pandemic response. Confirmed COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. do not capture the total burden of the pandemic because testing has been primarily restricted to individuals with moderate to severe symptoms due to limited test availability. Here, we use a semi-Bayesian probabilistic bias analysis to account for incomplete testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy. We estimate 6,454,951 cumulative infections compared to 721,245 confirmed cases (1.9% vs. 0.2% of the population) in the United States as of April 18, 2020. Accounting for uncertainty, the number of infections during this period was 3 to 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases. 86% (simulation interval: 64–99%) of this difference is due to incomplete testing, while 14% (0.3–36%) is due to imperfect test accuracy. The approach can readily be applied in future studies in other locations or at finer spatial scale to correct for biased testing and imperfect diagnostic accuracy to provide a more realistic assessment of COVID-19 burden.
******************************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************************************
The following video with Knut Wittowski, the well known epidemiologist, filmed in April, 2020, is still relevant today. Many of his videos have been deleted by YouTube but this one remains for the moment:
**************************************************************************************************8
What is the Cost of the Lockdown?
May 15, 2020
Recent research suggests that we are already pushing a fifth of small businesses into bankruptcy, many of which will have taken a lifetime of honest toil to build. The proportion is forecast to rise to a third after three months of lockdown.
Jonathan Sumption, Sunday Times, April 5th 2020
One of the most persuasive arguments for ending the lockdown is that prolonging it will lead to a greater loss of life in the long run – the cure will end up being worse than the disease, to paraphrase Donald Trump. Why? Because a prolonged lockdown will lead to a massive economic contraction and that will have a negative impact on public health. Kenneth Rogoff, the Harvard economist, thinks the “economic catastrophe” caused by locking people down is “likely to rival or exceed that of any recession in the last 150 years”, potentially leading to a “global depression”.
***********************************************************************************************
May 7, 2020
Generations to come are being saddled with high levels of public and private debt. These things kill, too. If all this is the price of saving human life, we have to ask whether it is worth paying.
The truth is that in public policy there are no absolute values, not even the preservation of life. There are only pros and cons. Do we not allow cars, among the most lethal weapons ever devised, although we know for certain that every year thousands will be killed or maimed by them? We do this because we judge that it is a price worth paying to get about in speed and comfort. Every one of us who drives is a tacit party to that Faustian bargain.
A similar calculation about the coronavirus might justify a very short period of lockdown and business closures, if it helped the critical care capacity of the NHS to catch up. It may even be that tough social distancing measures would be acceptable as applied only to vulnerable categories.
But as soon as the scientists start talking about a month or even three or six months, we are entering a realm of sinister fantasy in which the cure has taken over as the biggest threat to our society. Lockdowns are at best only a way of buying time anyway. Viruses don’t just go away. Ultimately, we will emerge from this crisis when we acquire some collective (or “herd”) immunity. That is how epidemics burn themselves out.
Jonathan Sumption, The Sunday Times, April 5th 2020
Attempting to place a monetary value on human life, using that quantum to calculate the financial benefit of extreme social distancing, and then weighing that benefit against the financial cost of the lockdown is always going to upset a lot of people, as I discovered when I had a stab at it in the Critic. There are those who think it’s morally wrong to attach a price tag to a human life – and some people reacted to my back-of-the-envelope calculation as if no decent person would ever attempt such an exercise. But it’s worth pointing out that all British governments put a cash value on the cost of extending people’s lives, including Labour governments. This may shock those unfamiliar with health economics, but there has to be an upper limit on what taxpayers can reasonably be expected to pay to keep people alive. As Dominic Lawson pointed out in the Sunday Times, “This is especially true of the NHS, a centralised, free-at-the-point-of-use system unique in the western world, which can only function on the basis of rationing (since demand for healthcare is, in effect, limitless if ‘free’).”
*************************************************************************************************
The WHO’s Erroneous Risk Assessment
3 June 2020. Updated 15 June 2020.
by Mikko Paunio, MD (University of Helsinki), MHS (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health), adjunct professor (general epidemiology) at the University of Helsinki
At the heart of the WHO’s risk assessment, at the start of the pandemic, was the assumption that only 1% of those infected would show no symptoms.12
The claim that few of the infections would be symptomless – and thus that everyone would become ill and that many people would die – paved the way to weeks of horror stories on the BBC, CNN, and in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian. And even more sober outlets like the Financial Times and the Economist followed suit, with little by way of analysis of what was actually known. In fact, the WHO’s claim was quickly rebutted by a member of its own Infectious Disease Catastrophe Committee,1 but too late to prevent panic spreading. The result was a lockdown across much of the world, the collateral damage from which will do far more harm than the virus.
A major serological survey from Spain3 now shows how wrong the initial WHO risk assessment was.
******************************************************************************************
The Grim Reaper Is Still Owed A Few Souls
I’m not usually a big fan of making predictions. I love the quote, reputedly from Nils Bohr: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”. But I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say I don’t think the graph shown by Boris Johnson’s “scientists” yesterday, of over 6000 deaths a day in the UK is going to happen. The fact that it was even shown I just find embarrassing. As a Brit. I’m not sure if it’s because it’s so scientifically illiterate, or whether it’s evidence that the authoritarian elite have so little respect for the people of this country that they can just put up such transparent garbage, to get what they want. Which appears to be the destruction of our wealth and way of life.
But there clearly are increasing Covid hospitalisations and deaths currently happening in the UK and in other places. My hypothesis below is that this is because the epidemic was artificially suppressed in April, and now reality is catching up again. The Grim Reaper wants his souls. And I think we can make a reasonable prediction of how many he is coming for, based on how many we tried to prevent him getting the first time around. Apparently, deaths during respiratory epidemics normally follow the Gompertz curve, a feature of which is the straight line decline once the epidemic has peaked. A comparison between Sweden and the UK shows this.
******************************************************************************************
– May 21, 2020
How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics
Economists have been writing for hundreds of years on the role of government in solving economic and social problems. A theme has emerged throughout: policy officials are quite often ill informed or have bad incentives compared with what individuals, markets, institutions, and society can achieve on their own. Economists have documented how government intervention leads to various unintended economic consequences and even human rights abuses.
We prefer private governance to public governance. We have applied this logic against socialism, fascism, war, macroeconomic planning, public goods, monetary policy, countercyclical fiscal policy, environmental regulation, and a hundred other issues. We’ve made a solid case for pure freedom.
And yet here we are living in times when the state is controlling our movements, shuttering businesses, defining who and what is essential, dangerously disrupting supply chains, forcibly closing schools and churches, and restricting travel. A shelter-in-place order is something of a liberal nightmare, the worst-possible use of coercive power against individual rights, and the results have been catastrophic.
