Main Edition
US
FR
August 19, 2023 - 8:00am
This week more than 40 of the UK’s leading child right charities and experts issued a scathing indictment against the UK Covid inquiry’s lukewarm acknowledgement of the impact of lockdown on 14 million young Brits. Dan Paskins, director of UK Impact at Save the Children said:
The open letter called for the inquiry to listen to the experiences and voices of children, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds. But this neglect of young people, notably absent from the inquiry’s opening pageantry, is merely the symptom of a larger global Covid policy disease: the sacrifice of the young for the old, or reverse ageism.
Children were not vectors of disease, despite pervasive media propaganda that toddlers would kill grandma. They were at minuscule risk from severe outcomes. Schools were never places of high transmission, something known as early as April 2020. Yet the expert classes, media and politicians hyped the risk to kids, dressing it up in a garb of unquestionable moralism that fed on our deepest fears: hurting children.
The public may have some inclination that Covid policies harmed our kids but few really grasp the type and scale of harm that occurred. In health terms, pandemic disruptions caused increases in non-Covid related excess mortality among children at much higher rates than Covid. A staggering 32% of children and adolescents reported depression and anxiety, according to a recent review, while rates of attempted suicide and self-harm also increased.
Elsewhere, adolescent and child lifestyles changed drastically for the worse too. Screen time increased by over 50% among children in 2020, which continued into late 2021. Childhood obesity rose while studies also show communication and personal-social impairments in kids born in 2020. Add to that the increases in physical, psychological and sexual abuse among children throughout the pandemic period, and the scale of this crisis becomes all too clearer.
In education, UNICEF called pandemic school closures an ‘intergenerational inequality shock’. They estimated a 13% increase in global learning poverty, which may cost students upwards of $21 trillion in lost earnings during their lifetime. In addition, a World Bank report estimated over half a billion children missed 1.5 years or more of school, and that millions dropped out early.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s not just the response to Covid that has caused children anxiety, the eco-fanatics are also doing their best to scare them out of their wits. It’s utterly reprehensible.
It’s not just the response to Covid that has caused children anxiety, the eco-fanatics are also doing their best to scare them out of their wits. It’s utterly reprehensible.
What about the 2 main questions ;
1 Did the lockdowns save more lives than they caused deaths ?
2 Did the vaccines save more lives than they caused deaths ?
It’s all just a multi-million pound smokescreen.
Cui bono ?
Where did the money go ?
Exactly!
But will we EVER get the truth ? No, not a chance in hell.
Consummatum est!
“2 Did the vaccines save more lives than they caused deaths ?”
The answer is yes. The analysis done after the fact shows this to be the case.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext#:~:text=Based%20on%20official%20reported%20COVID,%2C%20and%20Dec%208%2C%202021.
The complicating factor is that this analysis can only be modelled. You can’t go out into the world and actually count what would have happened otherwise, because it didn’t happen.
So if you are minded to distrust this kind of evidence or the people who produce it, then you are likely to dismiss it.
“1. Did the lockdowns save more lives than they caused deaths ?”
I think this is the nub of the matter, although I’m not sure focusing on deaths alone is necessarily the right way to consider it. The long term harm done to children’s education and social development will negatively impact many of them even if they live to 100.
My guess is that lockdown probably did save some lives (and was notably successful in place like New Zealand which because of population density, geography etc was able to isolate itself). But few people properly asked the question, how many lives saved justifies the harm done to children, the economy, mental health etc etc?
Which is a hard question to ask, of course, but pandemics ask hard questions of policy makers.
We won’t know for years as to wether lockdowns and the vaccines saved lives, and that’s if we ask the right questions. We’re still currently experiencing excess deaths, compared to pre pandemic times, which are non Covid. I’m sure there was an article in UnHerd, that the ONS, stated that life expectancy has drop by nearly 1 year.
We won’t know for years as to wether lockdowns and the vaccines saved lives, and that’s if we ask the right questions. We’re still currently experiencing excess deaths, compared to pre pandemic times, which are non Covid. I’m sure there was an article in UnHerd, that the ONS, stated that life expectancy has drop by nearly 1 year.
Sweden’s inquiry concluded they made good decisions (decisions I happen to agree with, but not my point here).
I rather suspect we will conclude broadly the same – if mistakes were made, they were understandable. I suspect most such inquiries will conclude the same. Afterall, if significant mistakes were made, somebody might have to be held to account.
165 million people slipped back into poverty because of lockdowns. Absolutely anyone with an ounce of common sense could predict that outcome. That’s why lockdowns were considered a non-starter prior to covid.
“Where did the money go ?”
That’s far right, white supremacist, fascist talk.
Thankfully, soon after COVID ended, Ukraine kicked off so that we could further trash the economy and find a use for those surplus billions that we have no use for.
Exactly!
But will we EVER get the truth ? No, not a chance in hell.
Consummatum est!
“2 Did the vaccines save more lives than they caused deaths ?”
The answer is yes. The analysis done after the fact shows this to be the case.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext#:~:text=Based%20on%20official%20reported%20COVID,%2C%20and%20Dec%208%2C%202021.
The complicating factor is that this analysis can only be modelled. You can’t go out into the world and actually count what would have happened otherwise, because it didn’t happen.
So if you are minded to distrust this kind of evidence or the people who produce it, then you are likely to dismiss it.
“1. Did the lockdowns save more lives than they caused deaths ?”
I think this is the nub of the matter, although I’m not sure focusing on deaths alone is necessarily the right way to consider it. The long term harm done to children’s education and social development will negatively impact many of them even if they live to 100.
My guess is that lockdown probably did save some lives (and was notably successful in place like New Zealand which because of population density, geography etc was able to isolate itself). But few people properly asked the question, how many lives saved justifies the harm done to children, the economy, mental health etc etc?
Which is a hard question to ask, of course, but pandemics ask hard questions of policy makers.
Sweden’s inquiry concluded they made good decisions (decisions I happen to agree with, but not my point here).
I rather suspect we will conclude broadly the same – if mistakes were made, they were understandable. I suspect most such inquiries will conclude the same. Afterall, if significant mistakes were made, somebody might have to be held to account.
165 million people slipped back into poverty because of lockdowns. Absolutely anyone with an ounce of common sense could predict that outcome. That’s why lockdowns were considered a non-starter prior to covid.
“Where did the money go ?”
That’s far right, white supremacist, fascist talk.
Thankfully, soon after COVID ended, Ukraine kicked off so that we could further trash the economy and find a use for those surplus billions that we have no use for.
What about the 2 main questions ;
1 Did the lockdowns save more lives than they caused deaths ?
2 Did the vaccines save more lives than they caused deaths ?
It’s all just a multi-million pound smokescreen.
Cui bono ?
Where did the money go ?
If the way we treat children is a reflection on society, then we are doomed. Children have become ideological pawns, to be used and discarded by adults to advance their cause du jour.
It’s not only Covid. Climate alarmists have brainwashed children into thinking the world will end, creating an army of little activists who will promote their agenda. Who cares if we create a generation of children riddled with anxiety, or a generation that will never enjoy the wealth and privilege of their parents?
Gender activists will literally encourage children to undergo life-altering medical interventions in some twisted ideological crusade to legitimize their lifestyle. And millions of enablers and cowards just let it happen.
If the way we treat children is a reflection on society, then we are doomed. Children have become ideological pawns, to be used and discarded by adults to advance their cause du jour.
It’s not only Covid. Climate alarmists have brainwashed children into thinking the world will end, creating an army of little activists who will promote their agenda. Who cares if we create a generation of children riddled with anxiety, or a generation that will never enjoy the wealth and privilege of their parents?
Gender activists will literally encourage children to undergo life-altering medical interventions in some twisted ideological crusade to legitimize their lifestyle. And millions of enablers and cowards just let it happen.
Agree.
The initial lockdown and school closure – understandable. Lockdown 2 – no and Govt incompetency alongside potential vested interests should be part of the Inquiry.
Personally I’d hope the Inquiry also touches on the potential harm over-exposure to social media and smart technologies at a young age, which even before the pandemic were arguably driving changes in child development we have yet to fully understand and fully appreciate. The pandemic then may have further accelerated this trend.
Agree.
The initial lockdown and school closure – understandable. Lockdown 2 – no and Govt incompetency alongside potential vested interests should be part of the Inquiry.
Personally I’d hope the Inquiry also touches on the potential harm over-exposure to social media and smart technologies at a young age, which even before the pandemic were arguably driving changes in child development we have yet to fully understand and fully appreciate. The pandemic then may have further accelerated this trend.
When one considers life-years lost (as used to be factored into public health decision making prior to everything being thrown out of the window in 2020), the youth appear to have been hit even harder.
Based on a life expectancy of 82, the death of an 80 year old means 2 years of life lost. The death of an 18 year old is 64 years lost (32 x 80 year olds).
I’m sick of this “Lockdowns saved lives” nonsense. No intervention has ever “saved” a life. We all die. Interventions may extend lives and public health used to attempt to calculate how many and by how much. Seemingly not any more.
Whenever I see someone use the phrase “lives saved”, I know that there is an ignorance that will be associated with large amounts of irrationality.
When one considers life-years lost (as used to be factored into public health decision making prior to everything being thrown out of the window in 2020), the youth appear to have been hit even harder.
Based on a life expectancy of 82, the death of an 80 year old means 2 years of life lost. The death of an 18 year old is 64 years lost (32 x 80 year olds).
I’m sick of this “Lockdowns saved lives” nonsense. No intervention has ever “saved” a life. We all die. Interventions may extend lives and public health used to attempt to calculate how many and by how much. Seemingly not any more.
Whenever I see someone use the phrase “lives saved”, I know that there is an ignorance that will be associated with large amounts of irrationality.
To begin with, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases. As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. And indeed, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
There you go; similar scientific studies and real-life cases can be quoted ad nauseam.
To begin with, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases. As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. And indeed, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
There you go; similar scientific studies and real-life cases can be quoted ad nauseam.
What do you think is the interest to address the harm caused to children in the same power structures that considers COVID to be just an extremely successful test, successful beyond wildest dreams, how far they can push people into total submission? They found there is no limit. So what do they care about harm caused to society, if the people they are planning to enslave do not really care?
What do you think is the interest to address the harm caused to children in the same power structures that considers COVID to be just an extremely successful test, successful beyond wildest dreams, how far they can push people into total submission? They found there is no limit. So what do they care about harm caused to society, if the people they are planning to enslave do not really care?
Yes, a huge negative impact on children, but let’s not forget that’s 40 organisations who need to generate scathing indictments or demonstrate their redundancy. Those mortgages and school fees won’t pay themselves, you know.
Yes, a huge negative impact on children, but let’s not forget that’s 40 organisations who need to generate scathing indictments or demonstrate their redundancy. Those mortgages and school fees won’t pay themselves, you know.
The power was with the older generation and they were whom the vaccines targetted.
I suspect that Big Pharma, Faucci and his CCP friends knew that a lab flu would maximise profits as well as wider economic damage to national competitors.
Children were collateraral damage.
The power was with the older generation and they were whom the vaccines targetted.
I suspect that Big Pharma, Faucci and his CCP friends knew that a lab flu would maximise profits as well as wider economic damage to national competitors.
Children were collateraral damage.
It’s not limited to Covid, almost every government policy seems to benefit the old over the young
It’s not limited to Covid, almost every government policy seems to benefit the old over the young
As long as the enquiry (and its sceptics) gives up on their 20:20 hindsight.
As long as the enquiry (and its sceptics) gives up on their 20:20 hindsight.
Hysteria. My kids’ literacy improved significantly during the so-called lockdown. We had much more family time, and our introverted second child, who is damaged by the forced socialisation of school, loved it.
You have little to bother about, frankly.
First world problem b/s
Middle class smugness you mean. I doubt that children in overcrowded tower block flats did so well. And anyone who will need to earn a living requires the ‘forced socialisation’ of school, however much they might hate it. Probably a result of spending the pre school years with a housewife mother instead of in a nursery.
Middle class smugness you mean. I doubt that children in overcrowded tower block flats did so well. And anyone who will need to earn a living requires the ‘forced socialisation’ of school, however much they might hate it. Probably a result of spending the pre school years with a housewife mother instead of in a nursery.
Hysteria. My kids’ literacy improved significantly during the so-called lockdown. We had much more family time, and our introverted second child, who is damaged by the forced socialisation of school, loved it.
You have little to bother about, frankly.
First world problem b/s
Unless the author can field alternative solutions, even with the benefit of hindsight, then this is just another frothy rant destined for the bin.
And how can children not be potential vectors? Very spurious claim.
Lockdowns were never part of the pandemic planning response prior to covid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12370977/The-Covid-Inquiry-never-admit-strong-pandemic-plan-went-wrong-Leftie-scientists-panicky-politicians-writes-PROFESSOR-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
How many more people would have died do you think, had we taken the Great Barrington approach?
165 million people slipped into poverty because of lockdowns. Not just western poverty – but $2 a day, abject poverty. I can’t wrap my head around that. Since 1998, there has been a steady and continuous reduction in poverty. That all ended with the selfish gerontocracy running the west. I can’t think of a more devastating, immoral act committed in the last 50 years.
Didn’t want to answer this dilemma then? I wonder why…
I didn’t bother because we’ve been down this path multiple times before. You say the Great Barrington Declaration isn’t possible. I say that’s hogwash. The British govt spent $200 billion in the first year of lockdowns alone, just to compensate workers to stay at home and compensate businesses for shutting down. A tiny fraction of that money could have been used to implement a real quarantine program for elderly people and others at risk.
On the other hand, you support lockdowns for the entire population. But they weren’t real quarantines because millions of people went to work. These people were spreading the disease, bringing it back home to people at risk, because these people didn’t have an option to be placed in a real quarantine zone and were therefore exposed to the disease. Lockdowns were only effective at protecting the laptop class, who got paid to work from home. It didn’t protect truckers or grocery clerks or essential workers.
I can’t make you see the logical fallacy of this approach, but it doesn’t mean the logical fallacy doesn’t exist.
The Great Barrington Declaration doesn’t require every single senior to be quarantined. It gives them a real choice though. The pretend lockdowns only protected people who could afford to live at home without going out. I emphasize the 165 million people who slipped into poverty to illustrate the carnage and devastation caused by lockdowns.
You’re vision of a quarantine zone is a complete fantasy from start to finish. You’re talking about millions of people being moved to ‘some place’ in a short space of time. Did you not consider logistics, resources, food, staff and of course organisation. It’s utter nonsense.
Why would there be millions of people? About 200,000 people died in Britain because of Covid. Theoretically, these are the only people who needed to be quarantined because everyone else survived.
Sure, this number is a bit ridiculous, but so is millions of people. The only people that needed to be quarantined are those who could not isolate at home, and would choose to leave their home.
Not every single senior needed to be quarantined or would consent to it. For those people who could not isolate at home, you house them in hotels or other facilities. Build some if you need to. China built a massive hospital in three weeks. The expense is not an issue because the govt found $200 billion for income replacement programs. The only barrier is manpower. Hotels already have staff. So how many more do you need – 10.000, 50,000?
Surely, you agree that lockdowns were an utter failure and caused much more damage than they prevented. Certainly, the 165 million people who slipped into poverty think they were an utter failure.
About a third of the population are considered vulnerable. That’s a lot of people to lock up in hotels for two years.
Lockdowns saved millions of lives, in this respect they were a huge success.
About a third of the population are considered vulnerable. That’s a lot of people to lock up in hotels for two years.
Lockdowns saved millions of lives, in this respect they were a huge success.
Why would there be millions of people? About 200,000 people died in Britain because of Covid. Theoretically, these are the only people who needed to be quarantined because everyone else survived.
Sure, this number is a bit ridiculous, but so is millions of people. The only people that needed to be quarantined are those who could not isolate at home, and would choose to leave their home.
Not every single senior needed to be quarantined or would consent to it. For those people who could not isolate at home, you house them in hotels or other facilities. Build some if you need to. China built a massive hospital in three weeks. The expense is not an issue because the govt found $200 billion for income replacement programs. The only barrier is manpower. Hotels already have staff. So how many more do you need – 10.000, 50,000?
Surely, you agree that lockdowns were an utter failure and caused much more damage than they prevented. Certainly, the 165 million people who slipped into poverty think they were an utter failure.
You’re vision of a quarantine zone is a complete fantasy from start to finish. You’re talking about millions of people being moved to ‘some place’ in a short space of time. Did you not consider logistics, resources, food, staff and of course organisation. It’s utter nonsense.
I didn’t bother because we’ve been down this path multiple times before. You say the Great Barrington Declaration isn’t possible. I say that’s hogwash. The British govt spent $200 billion in the first year of lockdowns alone, just to compensate workers to stay at home and compensate businesses for shutting down. A tiny fraction of that money could have been used to implement a real quarantine program for elderly people and others at risk.
On the other hand, you support lockdowns for the entire population. But they weren’t real quarantines because millions of people went to work. These people were spreading the disease, bringing it back home to people at risk, because these people didn’t have an option to be placed in a real quarantine zone and were therefore exposed to the disease. Lockdowns were only effective at protecting the laptop class, who got paid to work from home. It didn’t protect truckers or grocery clerks or essential workers.
I can’t make you see the logical fallacy of this approach, but it doesn’t mean the logical fallacy doesn’t exist.
The Great Barrington Declaration doesn’t require every single senior to be quarantined. It gives them a real choice though. The pretend lockdowns only protected people who could afford to live at home without going out. I emphasize the 165 million people who slipped into poverty to illustrate the carnage and devastation caused by lockdowns.
Didn’t want to answer this dilemma then? I wonder why…
165 million people slipped into poverty because of lockdowns. Not just western poverty – but $2 a day, abject poverty. I can’t wrap my head around that. Since 1998, there has been a steady and continuous reduction in poverty. That all ended with the selfish gerontocracy running the west. I can’t think of a more devastating, immoral act committed in the last 50 years.
How many more people would have died do you think, had we taken the Great Barrington approach?
To begin with, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases. As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. And indeed, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
There you go; similar scientific studies and real-life cases can be quoted ad nauseam.
Children generally didn’t contract and so spread this coronavirus.
Asymptomatic transmission was another myth set up by our modern bio-states and yet to be proven.
Children were not immune. Hope that helps.
For starters, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases (Thomson Reuters, 2014). As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. To be sure, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch famously argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
In short, the existing body of scientific knowledge, backed by real-life cases advises against implementing lockdowns for airborne viruses. And, it’s epidemiology “101,” not some kinf of arcane knowledge.
Hope that helps.
It doesn’t help at all. If these theories were so sound then why did almost every country and government consider it the correct approach to save lives? Which it was of course. The outlier was Sweden, and as we know, they had a complete disaster.
Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave of Covid, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were actually among the lowest in Europe.
Yet two or three times higher then comparative neighbours. Their policy cost the lives of thousands of people.
Yet two or three times higher then comparative neighbours. Their policy cost the lives of thousands of people.
Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave of Covid, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were actually among the lowest in Europe.
It doesn’t help at all. If these theories were so sound then why did almost every country and government consider it the correct approach to save lives? Which it was of course. The outlier was Sweden, and as we know, they had a complete disaster.
For starters, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases (Thomson Reuters, 2014). As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. To be sure, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch famously argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
In short, the existing body of scientific knowledge, backed by real-life cases advises against implementing lockdowns for airborne viruses. And, it’s epidemiology “101,” not some kinf of arcane knowledge.
Hope that helps.
Children were not immune. Hope that helps.
Lockdowns were never part of the pandemic planning response prior to covid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12370977/The-Covid-Inquiry-never-admit-strong-pandemic-plan-went-wrong-Leftie-scientists-panicky-politicians-writes-PROFESSOR-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
To begin with, until March 16, 2020, the scientific status quo on lockdowns was univocal: their efficacy is low, their consequences are dire, and they should be treated as a last resort. The 2014 Ebola lockdown in Sierra Leone was the ultimate case in point. As reported by media outlets in 2014, the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) group repeatedly warned against such measures. The MSF representatives argued that lockdowns (1) do not contain the spread of the virus and (2) aggravate the epidemic by concealing potential cases. As expected, they led to extreme food and water shortages and riots across the country. And indeed, a similar scenario was witnessed across the USA and Europe from the summer of 2020 onwards. This should not come as a surprise: studies show that in isolated humans and mice, the levels of tachykinins (TaC1 and TaC2) rise to very high levels: and increased levels of these neuropeptides increase anxiety, a sense of friction with the world and, ultimately, aggression.
Cohen and Lipsitch argued (2008) that the epidemic theory advises against strict interventions because the spread of viruses “can paradoxically increase the burden of disease in a population.” This is why the 2019 WHO’s influenza pandemic plan advocated strictly against measures such as social isolation, border closures, travel bans, and mass quarantines. Health Center at John Hopkins University’s report titled Preparedness for a High-impact Respiratory Pandemic confirmed similar conclusions, where movement restrictions are advised against due to their low efficacy against highly-transmissible pathogens that are spread through airborne mechanisms.
There you go; similar scientific studies and real-life cases can be quoted ad nauseam.
Children generally didn’t contract and so spread this coronavirus.
Asymptomatic transmission was another myth set up by our modern bio-states and yet to be proven.
Unless the author can field alternative solutions, even with the benefit of hindsight, then this is just another frothy rant destined for the bin.
And how can children not be potential vectors? Very spurious claim.