They do not get into the myriad associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.)ġ. (These studies are focused only on lockdown and their relationship to virus control. Intelligence and medical therapeutics fare much better. Fear, panic, and coercion are not ideal strategies for managing viruses. We have extremely limited control over them, and that which we do have is bound up with time and place. The upshot is that the virus is going to do as viruses do, same as always in the history of infectious disease. AIER has added its own and the summaries. Much of the following list has been put together by data engineer Ivor Cummins, who has waged a year-long educational effort to upend intellectual support for lockdowns. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population. The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats.
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent.
0 kommentar(er)
