Why I'm opposed to lockdowns

Updated: Jan 6

The Covid response has stopped making sense. Away from the closed-loop of mainstream media and government, many have serious concerns over the damaging effects of lockdowns. Criticisms surround their efficacy, ethics and sustainability. Lockdowns have already caused great distress with potentially catastrophic long-term implications for public health, livelihoods and the global economy.

A December 2020 study on Denmark's lockdowns found no significant difference in the number of infections before and after measures were implemented when compared to four municipalities that had no lockdowns. Secondly, the number of infections began to go down a week or more before lockdowns could have had any effect. In fact, infections declined in all four municipalities where lockdowns were not implemented.

A data analysis of 25 U.S. States and 23 Countries Concludes, “Neither Lockdowns nor Mask Mandates Lead to Reduced COVID Transmission Rates or Deaths

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID deaths as of late July. This analysis is the largest and most comprehensive analysis of the largest datasets to date. In all, the study included 25 U.S. states and 23 countries.

The paper’s conclusion is that the data trends indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates – do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall.

In an analysis of three popular studies given to support lockdowns, Prof. John Ioannidis of Stanford University concluded that "Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated."

There are also difficulties in determining if lockdowns elicit a significant benefit, either in reducing infections or deaths, due to multiple factors. For example, a study that claimed to see a reduction in the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) in 7 countries in North America and Europe stated in its conclusion: "There are several direct factors that might contribute to this decline, such as health service’s ability to cope with COVID-19 patients, increased and improved viral testing and tracing, the efficacy of different lockdown strategies, herd immunity development, the influence of age on the affected population, variation in viral contagiousness and lethality."

It's apparent what challenges exist in drawing a direct connection between lockdowns and any benefits in terms of reducing the impact of Covid. Neither does correlation equal causation, as the previous study cautions, where reductions in infections or deaths can be observed these could equally be ascribed to natural influences such as 'herd immunity' or the action of the virus itself. In Europe, it was noted that Covid infections were already in decline before lockdowns were implemented. Other studies have drawn attention to the seasonal nature of Covid.

One consistent omission is that very few of these studies factor in the human and societal cost of lockdowns. It's as if all that matters is a reduction in Covid deaths while ignoring deaths induced by lockdowns. This couldn't be more myopic. No research has been undertaken to assert whether the massive risks and significant death toll caused by these interventions are 'worth it'.

An inconsistent picture

The UK, Spain, Belgium and Italy all suffered a higher number of deaths per-capita while enduring strict or prolonged periods of lockdown as well as social distancing, mask-wearing, quarantining, isolation and curfews. Sweden, criticised for rejecting these measures as unsustainable, had a marginally lower death rate in 2020 than in 2012. Belarus was a similar story with 1,800 deaths out of a population of 9.5 million.

In Asia - Vietnam, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan, all of which had mainly light restrictions, deaths were exceedingly lower than in Europe. These countries have large, concentrated and populous urbanisations that should have seen high death rates but nonetheless escaped comparatively unscathed.

Even in the US open states had 75% fewer Covid deaths than those that locked down.

In The US a third of excess deaths during the pandemic could not be directly attributed to the coronavirus.

All this leaves a big question mark. If lockdowns can't consistently be observed to reduce deaths, could they be responsible for increasing them?

Lockdowns: A Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Skyrocketing global poverty, livelihoods wiped out, jobs lost, freedoms restricted - events, public gathering and places of worship suspended - families separated, the elderly and vulnerable forced into isolation, essential operations and treatments deferred - suicides, homelessness and domestic abuse all on the increase.

A report made by the ONS stated that for every three Covid deaths, lockdowns may have caused another two. In some cases, non-Covid excess deaths exceed excess Covid fatalities.

Another report (15th July 2020) by the UK Department of Health and Social Care, Office for National Statistics, Government Actuary’s Department and Home Office noted that:

“when morbidity is taken into account, the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs [quality-adjusted life years] than COVID-19 deaths”.

The indiscriminate, long-term damage seeded by lockdowns is a legacy that could see suffering stretch far into the future.

Lockdowns could lead to 100,000 non-Covid deaths in 2021 according to SAGE.

Boris Johnson had previously called a second lockdown “a nuclear deterrent”, warning that to impose it would be a “disaster” and would inflict “misery” on the public. Despite this lockdowns continued.

So if the military can use 'precision strikes' to avoid civilian loss of life, why are governments using such an indiscriminate weapon?

But the hospitals can't cope

Other the past couple of decades hospitals around the world have become increasingly overwhelmed with seasonal flu epidemics and respiratory diseases.

A quick Google search reveals many previous years when hospitals have come under siege from winter viruses. Being familiarly described as 'war zones' and 'close to breaking point'. This is nothing new.

In the UK, lockdowns and restrictions have created a unique set of circumstances that have pressurised the NHS. The locking down of hospitals at the start of the pandemic created a bottleneck of deferred consultancies, treatments and operations amid a staffing and resource crisis that is now seeing the service deluged.

Overall NHS England staff absences are up to an alarming 100K, with 50K of those off due to COVID Test & Trace isolation mandates. This is one of the significant contributors to the hospital pressure being experienced right now.

So what is this doing to public health?

In 2020 there were approximately 26,000 non-Covid excess deaths. This was 30% higher than usual. As we approached the end of 2020 The British Medical Journal noted that: "The excess deaths figure being higher than the number of deaths caused by covid-19 was “potentially worrying as it may suggest an increase in excess deaths [resulting from] indirect impacts of the pandemic upon health system pressures that impact care pathways for non-covid-19 conditions”.

For the NHS, a legacy of compounded problems has met the perfect storm. Staff shortages, resource-consuming Covid requirements, underfunding and a lockdown bottle-neck are finally bringing the service to its knees.

Lockdowns will not save the NHS, they are just making the situation worse and, as the economy suffers and tax revenues decline, may eventually cause its collapse.

Is Covid the 'Worst nightmare'?

Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has called Covid his “worst nightmare.”

But opinions and hyperbole are no substitute for facts, no matter who says them. So what are the facts, does Covid deserve the title 'worst nightmare'?

In August, at a small press gathering in Geneva, the World Health Organisation endorsed an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for SARS-CoV-2 of 0.6%. This was very different to the 3.5% that grabbed headlines at the start of the pandemic, which was derived using a. calculation based on cases.

The IFR is determined by estimating the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals. The fatality rate varies significantly between age groups and other demographics. For example, based on it's own data, Sweden estimated the IFR of those under 69 years as 0.1% and 0.4% for the over 70s.

But, the IFR may even be much lower. In May 2020 one of the world's top epidemiologists, Prof. John Ioannidis, announced the results of a serology study. The peer-reviewed study concluded that the IFR for Covid-19 is just 0.25%, far less than the 'official' figure endorsed by the WHO. In October Ioannidis revised the rate for under 70s to just 0.05%. This paper was later published on the WHO Bulletin but ignored by the mainstream media.

Accepting risk as a companion of freedom

Ultimately we have to ask ‘what are our freedoms worth?’. Are we really prepared to fragment society, limit freedoms, destroy livelihoods, wipeout economies and isolate healthy, productive individuals for such a small risk?

Lockdowns have also denied us adequate legal recourse and representation. Emergency legislation has declawed individual rights and the ability to fight back. British lawyer Michael Gardner writing for The Law Gazette stated: "The Covid pandemic has converted what is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy into a vehicle for government by decree."

As humans, we have to co-exist with viruses and learn to thrive despite them. This the ‘true normal’ – the ‘new normal’ is a false promise, a bleak future where life itself is permanently diminished under the delusion that we can be risk-free.

The road ahead

Despite all this, world leaders continue to take direction from a relatively small clique of scientists and organisations, intensifying lockdown measures.

I don't believe lockdowns are humane, fair or proportionate when all risks are considered. They are a grave threat to life, individual freedoms, civil society, global prosperity and the wellbeing of nations.

My belief is that what is happening is unstoppable because it is a spiritual delusion. I explain more about this in my other posts. To expose the lies being told should be the first priority because this leads people to the truth. The more people know the truth the sooner they can act to slow or mitigate the impact on their lives.

So, if it were possible, what steps would I like to see taken?

  1. Almost goes with our saying, end lockdowns. The evidence is in and they don't work. They were never part of public health policy in pandemic planning before Covid, so what changed? They are an unjustified and extreme policy that is damaging to the welfare of all. Lockdowns are inducing economic hardship, damaging to both physical and mental health.

  2. An honest re-evaluation of the severity of Covid in light of all the data and by comparison to previous epidemics and more common health threats

  3. An end to restrictions on civil liberties

  4. An end to socially isolating policies that keep apart families and friends and result in the elderly being cut-off from their loved ones

  5. An end to enforced measures such as quarantining, social distancing and mask-wearing to be replaced with a consensual approach

  6. The restoration of civil society and democratic institutions suppressed by the Coronavirus Act

How can you help?

If you agree with my synopsis and principles please feel free to republish or share these articles with your friends and family.

74 views0 comments