MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Lock-Downs’

Exceptionally Cruel and Insensitive Health Officials

Posted by M. C. on May 21, 2020

https://drsircus.com/general/exceptionally-cruel-and-insensitive-health-officials/

Not only are they cruel and insensitive but they are outright liars (they love scary predictions that do not come true) and do not want to listen to anyone who disagrees with their insensible plans to destroy human civilization. They are destroyers of human existence, human activity, human happiness and even human health.

To be in favor of lock-downs is to be for death of the world economy, increased death by suicide, increased death by over a million from tuberculous, vastly increased homelessness, and for millions to die of starvation. That is the short list. However, if you are into a cleaner planet then lockdown madness sounds like a good thing.

Medical Nightmare Turning Apocalyptic

It has not completely sunk in yet but the real nightmare is just getting started. More than four out of five people in the global labor force of 3.3 billion have been hit by full or partial workplace closures, according to the International Labor Organization, which says 1.6 billion workers in the informal economy “stand in immediate danger of having their livelihoods destroyed.” How a few men got the politicians of the world to do this is something that history will have to eventually answer.

More than 36 million have filed for unemployment in the
United States since mid-March. It is not a depression we are
entering but a collapse that could halt most human activity.

If the coronavirus pandemic continues to drive unemployment levels as high as predicted, homelessness will increase 40% to 45% by the end of the year, according to an analysis by a Columbia University economics professor. That would mean 250,000 more people in the US would experience homelessness compared with last year, bringing the total number of those experiencing homelessness to above 800,000.

How can we possibly measure the human suffering as a consequence of what is being done following the orders of health care officials? For those who oppose the orders it might be a good time to revisit the teaching of Martin Luther King Jr. “Martin King, was a minister who exposed the truth that obedience keeps us in chains. His crucial synthesis was to combine disobedience with goodness. His crucial work (and this is greatly under-appreciated) was to hold disobedience and goodness together.”

There is open lockdown rebellion in Pennsylvania and demonstrations in England and German. Political leaders have shown their true colors as they pretend to understand vital pandemics and what to do about them. They have clearly overstepped their bounds but I guess they love getting to be, more than ever before, the boss.

The toll for families is hunger, poverty and higher incidences of disease and death from all causes. Hunkering down at home to ride out the crisis isn’t an option for many, because securing the next meal means hustling to find a way to sell, clean, drive or otherwise work, despite the risk. As numerous prominent experts have warned, the lock-downs will also end up causing more deaths than the coronavirus due to a horrific spike in poverty and people with other serious illnesses being unable to get treatment.

World health officials are not practicing medicine or public health they are practicing cold-hardheartedness. They along with politicians are acting like the original communists and fascists who believed that their way was the only way, killing or censoring anyone who disagrees. Certain epidemiologists have said there is very little sturdy evidence to base lockdown policies on, but this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.

“For 16 years, we ran a thriving and happy
business, gone in a matter of weeks based on
the decisions of one man with too much power.”

China has arrested and imprisoned hundreds of people for merely discussing the coronavirus outbreak in any context that strays from the communist party narrative on the epidemic, according to a report from a US based Chinese organisation.Fox News pointed to the report by China Digital Times containing statistics that show between Jan. 1 and April 4, nearly 500 hundred people were arrested and charged, merely for talking about the virus.

Nearly 1.5 Million More Tuberculosis Deaths
are Expected Due To Coronavirus Lock-downs
.

Who are we going to blame these deaths on? And are we really saving lives with our lock-downs from the virus? People are dying from the virus with lock-down or not but we know now that millions will die of other causes because we are stopping human activity and confining people to their homes where most cannot work. Will we blame health officials with these deaths like we blamed Hitler, Stalin and Mao for the millions of deaths they wrought on the world?

When heath officials promote the benefits of “flattening the curve,” they fail to properly take into account the actual costs of imposing business closures and of forced social distancing: the coming economic depression will lead to mass unemployment, rising poverty, suicides, domestic abuse, alcoholism, and myriad other potential causes of death and suffering which could be considerably worse than the harms of the pandemic itself

Brazil’s health minister resigned on May 15th after less than a month on the job in a sign of continuing upheaval over how the nation should battle the coronavirus pandemic, quitting a day after President Jair Bolsonaro stepped up pressure on him to expand use of the antimalarial drug chloroquine in treating patients.

Health officials are at odds with politicians who are bucking the lockdown or who are insisting that appropriate treatments be applied instead of waiting for the holy grail vaccine that might or might not come and might or might not be affective. Millions worldwide will likely be permanently impacted before a vaccine arrives and we have no assurances that a rushed vaccine will be safe. Odds are great that it will be forced down our collective throats.

A long, drawn-out economic recovery will lead to a “significant number” of indirect deaths from coronavirus, the UK’s chief statistician has warned. Amid fears that the economy could take five years to return to pre-crisis levels under a worst case scenario, Sir Ian Diamond said the effects of the pandemic would be far-reaching as people are “pushed into poverty”.

While many European cities begin the process of reviving their economies, the Big Apple — America’s coronavirus epicenter — remains shut as authorities fear sparking another wave of COVID-19 infections. So let the city die and long live fear! Sweden never closed down in the first place and they are not having more difficulties with the virus than countries that have lockdown their people. We have let the fears of health authorities choke the world and create a form of hysteria never seen before.

Dr. Fauci, an internationally respected expert on infectious diseases and a key advisor to President Trump throughout the pandemic, testified in Congress that ending the lockdown too quickly could bring “really serious” consequences. What does he think continuing the lockdown will bring or does he not care. The media and even politicians who disagree with him continue to communicate that he is respected but many are calling for him to step down in disgrace.

A vast literature connects economic downturns to a number of
psychological issues, including anxiety, stress, and
depression, which often spur on various high-risk behaviors.

One user in a depression support group on Reddit recently posted, “I am going absolutely insane battling with my mind and being locked up in my house.” Another said, “Lockdown is making my depression the worst it’s ever been….I’d rather be dead than stuck in my house alone with my thoughts.”

Dr. Mark Sircus AC., OMD, DM (P)

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Did Society Benefit By Social Distancing? | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on May 9, 2020

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/what-did-society-benefit-by-social-distancing/

by

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Despite the fact that there has already been ample writing, both in the mainstream and in alternative press, on this subject from authors who are both persuasive and amply qualified mathematically and scientifically, this author finds himself wanting to offer a brief entry. As someone who has spent the larger portion of his professional career designing experiments, analyzing data, generating graphs, and writing reports about all of it, articles featuring science, statistics, charts and graphs aplenty seems be natural for me. However, none of that is needed. Instead, let us confine ourselves to the most basic logic.

At present, the United States and the world are locked in the grip of the COVID-19 Pandemic. One might be inclined to call it, “The COVID-19 Panic.” If he did, this author would agree. To fight this threat to life and apparently our very existence on Earth as we know it, the public has been forced to abide by the edicts of mayors, governors, and other leadership, at the local and national level. Those edicts can be summarized via two hashtags that started to trend on Twitter about six weeks ago. To assure that we have the same understanding of these concepts, a couple of definitions are in order.

The concept of flattening the curve, represented by the hashtag #FlattenTheCurve, refers to a statistical approach to mitigating the virus’s impact on society, using what is called a normal distribution to model the number of cases over time. In real life, this type of distribution is a representation of an idealized histogram, that is, vertical bars representing the count of observations per unit time, and positioned on a graph next to each other. The unit of time could be days, hours, minutes, or anything like that. (As an aside, for the vast majority of phenomena observed in our daily lives, a normal distribution is applicable, as justified by the Central Limit Theorem. Why this is true could be the subject of another essay, or hell, an entire book.)

The basic premise is that the height of the bars—representing counts of observations—start out small, and get bigger and bigger, eventually reaching a maximum value or peak, and then returning to getting smaller and smaller. The tallest bar—or peak of the distribution—can then be thought of as the maximum number of individuals (per unit time) who actively have the virus. Let us term this ‘Maximum COVID-19 Patients’. The area under the curve, which is equivalent to simply adding up all the observations in each of the bars, is the total number of people who are stricken with COVID-19. Let us term this, ‘Total COVID-19 Cases’.

From the start of discussions of the pandemic and how to deal with it, this number—the total number of people who would be stricken with the virus, ‘Total COVID-19 Cases’—has not been the subject of major debate; that is to say, the area under the curve was not expected to change markedly. In fact, no one in his or her right mind thought that anything could be done to stop the spread of the disease via behavior. The best we could hope for would be to slow the spread, ostensibly so that the medical establishment—hospitals and other front-line structures—could deal with the onslaught. (One might, if he were optimistic, think that we could develop and distribute a vaccine quickly enough that lengthening societal exposure time was no big deal. That is, if he were an idiot.) That everyone, or effectively everyone, would eventually be exposed was not in doubt.

Flattening the curve could, at best, decrease that peak value, i.e., the maximum number of people exhibiting the disease at a point in time, in exchange for a longer timeframe of population exposure, what I will term ‘Societal Exposure Time’. In summary, ‘Total COVID-19 Cases’ (the area under the curve) would be unchanged, but we would exchange a lower ‘Maximum COVID-19 Patients’ for a longer ‘Societal Exposure Time’. Total number of deaths, unchanged. Length of time, extended. Put a pin in that point.

The concept of social distancing, represented by the hashtag #SocialDistancing, refers to the limiting interpersonal contact. Standing X feet from someone, or wearing a mask, or canceling events that are crowd-centric (such as basketball games or concerts) are all implementations of social distancing. The same is true of forcing the temporary closure of ostensibly “non-essential” businesses. So then, #FlattenTheCurve is the what, and #SocialDistancing is the how. No matter what methodology is utilized for social distancing, it is a means that has, as its raison d’être, flattening the curve. Put a pin in that point as well.

So then, flattening the curve via social distancing could produce, at best, one outcome: slow the progression of the disease so as to limit the loading on hospitals and treatment centers. In a perfect world, that outcome could also result in fewer deaths overall, i.e., a reduction in ‘Maximum COVID-19 Patients’ could, given limited medical resources, decrease the net number of deaths. As already noted, built into this approach is the secondary effect that it also must increase ‘Societal Exposure Time’. Slowing the progression of the disease means, automatically, that the disease is present in a society for longer, other factors being equal.

The direct outcome of government-imposed social distancing was a lock-down on businesses such as bars, restaurants, as well as sporting events and concerts, and on non-essential businesses. This led inexorably to limited or no income for certain sectors of the economy. That lack of income placed a huge strain on people who depended upon the “interaction economy,” such as hospitality and those non-essential businesses, to exist, i.e., people who are paid by or receive a large percentage of their income from those industries and industries related to or dependent upon them. The calculus of this lock-down on the economy generally, and these specific sectors of the economy in particular, was supposedly always a consideration, although it is becoming increasingly obvious that it was not given full examination by those with the power to impose the lock-downs. A simple trade-off was presented: “Put a little strain on a few industries now, and save lives as a result.”

However, and this is the worrisome case, if flattening the curve via social distancing does not result in fewer deaths, which it could only do in the event that hospitals were overwhelmed, then the best-case result of the approach is to only increase ‘Societal Exposure Time’. The net effect of supposedly flattening the curve, assuming the curve was actually flattened, could actually be looked upon as wasted time, while people dependent on the interaction economy and/or unlucky enough to work in an ostensibly non-essential sector have limited, reduced, or no income—along with all the related secondary and tertiary industries who supply or are served by them. From much of the reporting, the vast majority of hospitals were not overwhelmed.

One could even argue if the healthcare establishment would have been overwhelmed without ostensibly flattening the curve. While it is possible that in some places, such as New York City or Detroit, social distancing had some effect, it is equally likely, nay probable, that some social distancing, without lockdowns, would have sufficed almost everywhere else. Moreover, what if the progression of COVID-19 through the population was unaffected by social distancing? Every year the flu comes and goes and not everyone gets it. This, despite almost no social distancing practices and despite the fact that not everyone gets vaccinated, all without machinations such as lock-downs imposed on the public and marketed with puffery such as, “Stay Home and Save a Life.” By virtually any evaluation then, flattening the curve via social distancing had almost no net positive effect for the majority of the United States! Zilch. Zip. Zero. Bupkis.

Even if these draconian lock-downs did have a positive effect, (and that is a big-assed IF) the time for them is long over. The increased ‘Societal Exposure Time’ has turned directly into massive negative economic impact across multiple sectors of the economy. And let us be clear, this negative economic impact is not about rich dudes going on fewer vacations, it is about the people who previously depended upon the interaction economy—that ecosystem of businesses, one of them the hospitality and restaurant sector and another of them the supposedly non-essential sector—for income to eat and pay bills. Those people are part of the over twenty-five million people who have gone from working to unemployed over a few weeks as a result of those lock-downs.

Will they find new employment quickly? Will businesses closed in the wreckage of bungled government approach to COVID-19 rapidly re-open? Who knows? Doubtful on both counts. Built into the supposed calculus of flattening the curve via social distancing was the horribly simplified and sound-byte-ready idea and/or belief that “saving lives trumps worrying about any negative economic effects.” The negative side of that calculus was evidently never fully grasped, particularly in the event that flattening the curve via social distancing did not result in markedly fewer deaths, which it did not.

This is exactly where we are today in the United States: massive negative economic impact and still no obvious plan to immediately remove the government-imposed lock-downs. Little (if any) benefit, but all the pain—with more pain on the horizon. The fact that many government leaders are taking a measured, pensive approach to ending the lock-downs and thereby un-doing what they did with knee-jerking half-assery is laughable. The government-mandated lock-downs should end just as quickly as they were implemented. That none of the losers who imposed them is likely to apologize for any of the irreparable damage done to society is par for the course.

Wilt Alston

 

 

 

 

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason Behind the Lock-Downs? – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on April 7, 2020

Why am I thinking of the climate change industry.

Is Gates an Al Gore wannabe?

Will digital immunity ID be the equivalent of a tattooed serial number?

Then a few seconds later, at 33:45, Gates drops another bomb:

We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people […] To be clear, we’re trying – through the shut-down in the United States – to not get to one percent of the population infected.

Vaccines are very big business: this Feb. 23 CNBC article, for example, describes the vaccine market as six times bigger than it was 20 years ago, at more than $35 billion annually today, and providing a $44 return for every $1 invested in the world’s 94 lowest-income countries.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/04/did-bill-gates-just-reveal-the-reason-behind-the-lock-downs/

Rosemary Frei
In a recent candid interview, Bill Gates outlined that, despite the comparatively small threat of Coronavirus, he and his colleagues “don’t want a lot of recovered people” who have acquired natural immunity. They instead are hoping we become reliant on vaccines and anti-viral medication.
Shockingly, Gates also suggests people be made to have a digital ID showing their vaccination status, and that people without this “digital immunity proof” would not be allowed to travel. Such an approach would mean very big money for vaccine producers.

On March 24 Bill Gates gave a highly revelatory 50-minute interview (above) to Chris Anderson. Anderson is the Curator of TED, the non-profit that runs the TED Talks.

The Gates interview is the second in a new series of daily ‘Ted Connects’ interviews focused on COVID-19. The series’s website says that:

TED Connects: Community and Hope is a free, live, daily conversation series featuring experts whose ideas can help us reflect and work through this uncertain time with a sense of responsibility, compassion and wisdom.”

Anderson asked Gates at 3:49 in the video of the interview – which is quickly climbing to three million views – about a ‘Perspective’ article by Gates that was published February 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“You wrote that this could be the once-in-a-century pandemic that people have been fearing. Is that how you think of it, still?” queried Anderson.

“Well, it’s awful to say this but, we could have a respiratory virus whose case fatality rate was even higher. If this was something like smallpox, that kills 30 percent of people. So this is horrific,” responded Gates.

“But, in fact, most people even who get the COVID disease are able to survive. So in that, it’s quite infectious – way more infectious than MERS [Middle East Respiratory Syndrome] or SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] were. [But] it’s not as fatal as they were. And yet the disruption we’re seeing in order to knock it down is really completely unprecedented.”

Gates reiterates the dire consequences for the global economy later in the interview.

“We need a clear message about that,” Gates said starting at 26:52.

“It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic. I mean, nothing like this has ever happened to the economy in our lifetimes. But … bringing the economy back and doing [sic] money, that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. So we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension, huge pain, in order to minimize the pain in disease and death dimension.”

However, this goes directly against the imperative to balance the benefits and costs of the screening, testing and treatment measures for each ailment – as successfully promulgated for years by, for example, the Choosing Wisely campaign – to provide the maximum benefit to individual patients and society as a whole.

Even more importantly, as noted in an April 1 article in OffGuardian, there may be dramatically more deaths from the economic breakdown than from COVID-19 itself.

“By all accounts, the impact of the response will be great, far-reaching, and long-lasting,”

Kevin Ryan wrote in the article. Ryan estimated that well over two million people will likely die from the sequelae of the lock-downs and other drastic measures to enforce ‘social distancing.’…

Then at 32:50 in the video, Anderson asked whether the blood serum from people who have recovered from a COVID infection can be used to treat others.

“I heard you mention that one possibility might be treatments from the serum, the blood serum of people who had had the disease and then recovered. So I guess they’re carrying antibodies,” said Anderson. “Talk a bit about that and how that could work and what it would take to accelerate that.”

[Note that Anderson did not ask Gates about, instead, just letting most of the population – aside from people most vulnerable to serious illness from the infection, who should be quarantined — be exposed to COVID-19 and as a result very likely recover and develop life-long immunity. As at least one expert has observed, “as much as ninety-nine percent of active cases [of COVID-19] in the general population are ‘mild’ and do not require specific medical treatment” to recover.]

“This has always been discussed as, ‘How could you pull that off?’” replied Gates. “So people who are recovered, it appears, have very effective antibodies in their blood. So you could go, transfuse them and only take out white cells, the immune cells.”

However, Gates continued, he and his colleagues have dismissed that possibility because it’s “fairly complicated – compared to a drug we can make in high volume, you know, the cost of taking it out and putting it back in probably doesn’t scale as well.”

Then a few seconds later, at 33:45, Gates drops another bomb:

We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people […] To be clear, we’re trying – through the shut-down in the United States – to not get to one percent of the population infected. We’re well below that today, but with exponentiation, you could get past that three million [people or approximately one percent of the U.S. population being infected with COVID-19 and the vast majority recovering]. I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.”

It appears that rather than let the population be exposed to the virus and most develop antibodies that give them natural, long-lasting immunity to COVID-19, Gates and his colleagues far prefer to create a vast, hugely expensive, new system of manufacturing and selling billions of test kits, and in parallel very quickly developing and selling billions of antivirals and vaccines.

And then, when the virus comes back again a few months later and most of the population is unexposed and therefore vulnerable, selling billions more test kits and medical interventions.

Right after that, at 34:14, Gates talked about how he sees things rolling out from there.

Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person […] Because you don’t want people moving around the world where you’ll have some countries that won’t have it under control, sadly. You don’t want to completely block off the ability for people to go there and come back and move around. So eventually there will be this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up.”

[Sometime on the afternoon of March 31 the last sentence of this quote was edited out of the official TED video of the interview. Fortunately, recordings of the complete interview are archived elsewhere.]…

Be seeing you

Follow the money of the global warming scam | Liberals ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »