It's almost impossible to believe, but there are apparently still some people under the illusion that the lockdowns have served some positive purpose. We know the negative purpose: to crush the small business and working classes. Steve Watson has a piece at Summit News today that exposes the lack of any rational basis for the lockdowns:
Professor: Historians Will Look Back On Lockdowns As ‘Most Catastrophic Event Of All Human History’
“Every single poor person on the face of the earth has faced some harm, sometimes catastrophic harm, from this lockdown policy.”
The professor in question here is Jay Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya has PhDs in assorted subjects, like epidemiology and economics and teaches at the Stanford medical school. In other words, he actually has some credentials as opposed to career bureaucrats like Fauci. He also was one of the drafters of the Great Barrington Declaration. Watson links to an interview with Bhattacharya at a UK outlet, Planet Normal. The interview has its moments. If you care to listen to it, follow the link and go to the 30:00 minute mark.
For our purposes, I'll embed two brief videos and some text, to give some flavor for the state of debate.
First we have Watson, with his trademark style and accent--is that Estuary English? I don't like it, but he can be entertaining while also being informative and making serious points. The most serious point, halfway through, is that in the UK it has been revealed that public health officials, so-called, colluded to "ramp up the fear" to control the populace and force compliance with their dictates. Thank God that could never happen here:
Next some text. It simply reinforces that intelligent people know that this lockdown stuff is all bullsh*t. But ...
It's actually much worse than that.
Serious and intelligent people are pointing out how this Covid regime has crushed the people at the bottom of the heap--the poor, throughout the world. And, of course, while this goes unmentioned, the poor and the middle classes are about to get crushed even further by inflation. Meanwhile, what pass for "leaders" in our woke era indulge in what passes for "virtue" signaling at seaside resorts, making believe that the Great Reset will benefit anybody other than the rich.
The effects of lockdown have been devastating, with leading cancer charities in the UK warning that there is a crisis underway with huge numbers of people not receiving referrals or treatment because they’ve been told to stay at home and not to burden the National Health Service.
A major new study by German scientists at Munich University has also found that lockdowns had no effect on reducing the country’s coronavirus infection rate.
“Statisticians at Munich University found “no direct connection” between the German lockdown and falling infection rates in the country,” reports the Telegraph.
The findings add to the mountains of research that already exists suggesting that the ‘cure is worse than the problem’ as regards the COVID pandemic.
As we previously reported, Academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.
In October, the World Health Organization’s Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge said governments should stop enforcing lockdowns, unless as a “last resort,” because the impact on other areas of health and mental well-being is more damaging.
Note that. The WHO's man in Europe was calling for an end to lockdowns back in October. That was at least seven months ago. Can there be any doubt that the lockdowns are driven by politics, not public health?
Here, to conclude is a brief but hard hitting video from another WHO official, that exposes the moral frivolity--or, really, depravity--of our ruling classes:
Kluge’s warning matched that of the WHO’s special envoy on COVID-19, Dr David Nabarro, who told the Spectator in an interview that world leaders should stop imposing lockdowns as a reflex reaction because they are making “poor people an awful lot poorer.”
WATCH: Dr David Nabarro, the WHO's Special Envoy on Covid-19, tells Andrew Neil: 'We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method'. Watch the full interview here: https://t.co/XLdaedsKVS #SpectatorTV @afneil | @davidnabarro pic.twitter.com/1M4xf3VnXQ— The Spectator (@spectator) October 9, 2020
"We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method"ReplyDelete
I have never seen begging work against narcissists.
With slightly under 50% of the country running out to get the jab, I'd say the "believers" are quite high.ReplyDelete
There are a lot of people that will call something BS privately or anonymously... But get them in a real world situation and you quickly figure out their terrified!
There their and they're... I'm going to hide before aNanny shows up. 🙄Delete
I doubt many are believers but are unwilling to lose a job over an injection that is probably about as safe as contracting the virus for most healthy adult individuals. It is amazing, however, how quickly those HIPAA privacy protections were tossed overboard...Delete
When you're a true believer, it is a big leap to admit you've been played for a fool. They prefer to be government fed sheep... It takes a village, ya know.ReplyDelete
Mark, you're doing God's work. Thank youReplyDelete
Thanks--in which case I hope I won't be held to that high a standard! :-)Delete
Check this out.ReplyDelete
States still on lock down. Michigan should rename to new Mogadishu.
"The professor in question here is Jay Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya has PhDs in assorted subjects, like epidemiology and economics and teaches at the Stanford medical school. In other words, he actually has some credentials as opposed to career bureaucrats like Fauci. He also was one of the drafters of the Great Barrington Declaration."
But isn't Bhattacharya hopelessly unethical?
(FWIW, I've always been pretty impressed by Jay Bhattacharya...all in good fun, Mark)
I knew I'd criticized some of his views in the past. My actual words suggested he might not be "ethically scrupulous" rather than "hopelessly unethical." There is a difference of degree at the least.Delete
That criticism derived from his method of putting together a sample population for an epidemiological study--that method being not so random.
I also disagreed with some of the things he said in the interview above, which is why I didn't give him a ringing endorsement. However, there's no doubting that his credentials and work compare very favorably with the likes of a Fauci--and many others in the public health bureaucracy. The interdisciplinary nature of his creds is particularly impressive, although all are heavily mathematicized--which the interviewer points out.
All things considered, I'd be pretty happy to see him replace Fauci and his ilk. Thanks for locating that link.