The Collateral Damage From Lockdowns is Vast and Will Kill Millions

[Nordberg]

Lockdowns are necessary because rightys will not do the right thing. Their defiance to masks and distancing has been repeated across the country. If a Dem says it, do the opposite. What children they are.

[cancel2 2022]

Lockdowns are necessary because rightys will not do the right thing. Their defiance to masks and distancing has been repeated across the country. If a Dem says it, do the opposite. What children they are.

The average age of Covid victims is 82.4 in the UK, how old are you Nutberg? I would implore you to read this but sadly I think you're far too set on your ways to change now.

How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson


Economists have been writing for hundreds of years on the role of government in solving economic and social problems. A theme has emerged throughout: policy officials are quite often ill informed or have bad incentives compared with what individuals, markets, institutions, and society can achieve on their own. Economists have documented how government intervention leads to various unintended economic consequences and even human rights abuses.

We prefer private governance to public governance. We have applied this logic against socialism, fascism, war, macroeconomic planning, public goods, monetary policy, countercyclical fiscal policy, environmental regulation, and a hundred other issues. We’ve made a solid case for pure freedom.

And yet here we are living in times when the state is controlling our movements, shuttering businesses, defining who and what is essential, dangerously disrupting supply chains, forcibly closing schools and churches, and restricting travel. A shelter-in-place order is something of a liberal nightmare, the worst-possible use of coercive power against individual rights, and the results have been catastrophic.

It’s my view that we have been ill-prepared to deal with this onslaught. We have a very thin record of writings that make the case that freedom, market forces, and private governance are better than government quarantines and closures in dealing with pandemics. So where do we turn for better arguments and a better case?

Part of the problem is that as economists, historians, and political philosophers people are telling us to stay in our lane and not comment on medical matters. In general that is good advice. But there is a problem. The computer scientists and theoretical physicists who dreamed up this lock down haven’t really had serious medical training either and they sure haven’t stayed in their lane. They certainly have cared very little for the economic implications of their plans.

Where do we turn for competent commentary on the medical aspects of quarantine and lockdowns? Where is our credentialled and experienced expert who can provide weighty evidence that this is the wrong course?

Let me introduce you to Donald A. Henderson (1928-2016). He was the twentieth-century’s most acclaimed disease eradicator. In particular, he is credited with ridding the world of smallpox. He was born in Lakewood, Ohio, son of a nurse and an engineer. He went to Oberlin College for undergraduate and graduated in medicine from the University of Rochester. He trained two more years at the Epidemic Intelligence Service of the Communicable Disease Center, and moved to Geneva to head the World Health Organization’s division focussed on smallpox.

I encourage you to read his entire biography posted at Johns Hopkins, where he headed a brilliant epidemiological team.

In 2006, at the order of the Bush administration, some computer science programmers with a small group of public health officials began to resurrect a premodern idea of quarantines, closures, and measured lockdowns. This way of thinking is not just premodern; it turned the logic of modern medicine on its head. It was based on a theory that we should just run away from viruses, whereas Dr. Henderson’s whole life had been devoted to implementing the great discovery of modern virus theory that we need not flee but rather build immunity through science, either natural immunities or via vaccines.

At the age of 78, Dr. Henderson swung into action and composed a masterful response to the new fashion for quarantines and lockdowns. The result was Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. Henderson, though listed last, was the primary author along with co-authors Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.
Here is the riveting conclusion:

.
Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

.

https://www.aier.org/article/how-a-f...ald-henderson/

[Legion]

Lockdowns are necessary because rightys will not do the right thing. Their defiance to masks and distancing has been repeated across the country..

Never mind legality, eh?

[Legion]

The average age of Covid victims is 82.4 in the UK, how old are you Nutberg? I would implore you to read this but sadly I think you're far too set on your ways to change now.

How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson


Economists have been writing for hundreds of years on the role of government in solving economic and social problems. A theme has emerged throughout: policy officials are quite often ill informed or have bad incentives compared with what individuals, markets, institutions, and society can achieve on their own. Economists have documented how government intervention leads to various unintended economic consequences and even human rights abuses.

We prefer private governance to public governance. We have applied this logic against socialism, fascism, war, macroeconomic planning, public goods, monetary policy, countercyclical fiscal policy, environmental regulation, and a hundred other issues. We’ve made a solid case for pure freedom.

And yet here we are living in times when the state is controlling our movements, shuttering businesses, defining who and what is essential, dangerously disrupting supply chains, forcibly closing schools and churches, and restricting travel. A shelter-in-place order is something of a liberal nightmare, the worst-possible use of coercive power against individual rights, and the results have been catastrophic.

It’s my view that we have been ill-prepared to deal with this onslaught. We have a very thin record of writings that make the case that freedom, market forces, and private governance are better than government quarantines and closures in dealing with pandemics. So where do we turn for better arguments and a better case?

Part of the problem is that as economists, historians, and political philosophers people are telling us to stay in our lane and not comment on medical matters. In general that is good advice. But there is a problem. The computer scientists and theoretical physicists who dreamed up this lock down haven’t really had serious medical training either and they sure haven’t stayed in their lane. They certainly have cared very little for the economic implications of their plans.

Where do we turn for competent commentary on the medical aspects of quarantine and lockdowns? Where is our credentialled and experienced expert who can provide weighty evidence that this is the wrong course?

Let me introduce you to Donald A. Henderson (1928-2016). He was the twentieth-century’s most acclaimed disease eradicator. In particular, he is credited with ridding the world of smallpox. He was born in Lakewood, Ohio, son of a nurse and an engineer. He went to Oberlin College for undergraduate and graduated in medicine from the University of Rochester. He trained two more years at the Epidemic Intelligence Service of the Communicable Disease Center, and moved to Geneva to head the World Health Organization’s division focussed on smallpox.

I encourage you to read his entire biography posted at Johns Hopkins, where he headed a brilliant epidemiological team.

In 2006, at the order of the Bush administration, some computer science programmers with a small group of public health officials began to resurrect a premodern idea of quarantines, closures, and measured lockdowns. This way of thinking is not just premodern; it turned the logic of modern medicine on its head. It was based on a theory that we should just run away from viruses, whereas Dr. Henderson’s whole life had been devoted to implementing the great discovery of modern virus theory that we need not flee but rather build immunity through science, either natural immunities or via vaccines.

At the age of 78, Dr. Henderson swung into action and composed a masterful response to the new fashion for quarantines and lockdowns. The result was Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. Henderson, though listed last, was the primary author along with co-authors Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.
Here is the riveting conclusion:

.
Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

.

https://www.aier.org/article/how-a-f...ald-henderson/

No leftist possesses the attention span to read that or the intellectual prowess to comprehend it, Tom.

[Legion]

No question your president pooched it

Tom doesn't have a "president", grandpa. He's a British citizen living in Thailand.

[Legion]

And because using the pandemic to justify martial law agrees with members of the Left who thirst for power.... remember there is no truth there is only power according to them, and the ends justify the means. Tucker is not wrong that mask wearing demands is partly obedience training. Americans have long been trained to allow government power grabs on the pretext of "SAFETY!"...exaggerating the danger is this bug was an easy fit for an already ongoing Revolution for multiple reasons.

Political power springs from the barrel of a gun.

[Hawkeye10]

Political power springs from the barrel of a gun.

In the words of the BLM/ANIFIA thugs; "Violence Works!"

They have no interest in talking, in convincing people that they are right.

[Legion]

In the words of the BLM/ANIFIA thugs; "Violence Works!" They have no interest in talking, in convincing people that they are right.

Neither do I. Leftists aren't worth trifling with. They cannot be persuaded, and those who could be "converted" are suspect and untrustworthy. Violence works, especially when it removes the threat without a trace.

[Nordberg]

In the words of the BLM/ANIFIA thugs; "Violence Works!"

They have no interest in talking, in convincing people that they are right.

I guess the information does not reach your bunker. Both Antifa and BLM have a solid and proper basis.

[gemini104104]

.
It's got beyond a joke destroying whole economies because old biddies like PoliShitTalker, Salty and Doris are scared. Of course some of the biggest reasons for people dying is obesity, being over 80 and co-morbidities.



https://lockdownsceptics.org/covid-research/

This would be the winner for a loser and a sucker legacy of a lawlessly hacked in Putin POS tRump, which includes his sold out republicans that unfortunately there are still dumbass voters who insist on voting against their own interests with a hater and vindictive hell bound attitude, and against the best interests of humanity for this toilet tRump/Putin/Repuke insurgency from the gutter at being uncivilized, un Constitutional and un American.

[Nordberg]

The average age of Covid victims is 82.4 in the UK, how old are you Nutberg? I would implore you to read this but sadly I think you're far too set on your ways to change now.

How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson


Economists have been writing for hundreds of years on the role of government in solving economic and social problems. A theme has emerged throughout: policy officials are quite often ill informed or have bad incentives compared with what individuals, markets, institutions, and society can achieve on their own. Economists have documented how government intervention leads to various unintended economic consequences and even human rights abuses.

We prefer private governance to public governance. We have applied this logic against socialism, fascism, war, macroeconomic planning, public goods, monetary policy, countercyclical fiscal policy, environmental regulation, and a hundred other issues. We’ve made a solid case for pure freedom.

And yet here we are living in times when the state is controlling our movements, shuttering businesses, defining who and what is essential, dangerously disrupting supply chains, forcibly closing schools and churches, and restricting travel. A shelter-in-place order is something of a liberal nightmare, the worst-possible use of coercive power against individual rights, and the results have been catastrophic.

It’s my view that we have been ill-prepared to deal with this onslaught. We have a very thin record of writings that make the case that freedom, market forces, and private governance are better than government quarantines and closures in dealing with pandemics. So where do we turn for better arguments and a better case?

Part of the problem is that as economists, historians, and political philosophers people are telling us to stay in our lane and not comment on medical matters. In general that is good advice. But there is a problem. The computer scientists and theoretical physicists who dreamed up this lock down haven’t really had serious medical training either and they sure haven’t stayed in their lane. They certainly have cared very little for the economic implications of their plans.

Where do we turn for competent commentary on the medical aspects of quarantine and lockdowns? Where is our credentialled and experienced expert who can provide weighty evidence that this is the wrong course?

Let me introduce you to Donald A. Henderson (1928-2016). He was the twentieth-century’s most acclaimed disease eradicator. In particular, he is credited with ridding the world of smallpox. He was born in Lakewood, Ohio, son of a nurse and an engineer. He went to Oberlin College for undergraduate and graduated in medicine from the University of Rochester. He trained two more years at the Epidemic Intelligence Service of the Communicable Disease Center, and moved to Geneva to head the World Health Organization’s division focussed on smallpox.

I encourage you to read his entire biography posted at Johns Hopkins, where he headed a brilliant epidemiological team.

In 2006, at the order of the Bush administration, some computer science programmers with a small group of public health officials began to resurrect a premodern idea of quarantines, closures, and measured lockdowns. This way of thinking is not just premodern; it turned the logic of modern medicine on its head. It was based on a theory that we should just run away from viruses, whereas Dr. Henderson’s whole life had been devoted to implementing the great discovery of modern virus theory that we need not flee but rather build immunity through science, either natural immunities or via vaccines.

At the age of 78, Dr. Henderson swung into action and composed a masterful response to the new fashion for quarantines and lockdowns. The result was Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. Henderson, though listed last, was the primary author along with co-authors Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.
Here is the riveting conclusion:

.
Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

.

https://www.aier.org/article/how-a-f...ald-henderson/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/88401 It would kill 1.5 million more and cost 80 billion in hospital costs. Think a million.5 deaths might result in some , mental and social problems? Of course it would.
You want to pile up the deaths, then going after herd immunity is a great way to achieve it. It would not mitigate the psychological costs either.

[cancel2 2022]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/88401 It would kill 1.5 million more and cost 80 billion in hospital costs. Think a million.5 deaths might result in some , mental and social problems? Of course it would.
You want to pile up the deaths, then going after herd immunity is a great way to achieve it. It would not mitigate the psychological costs either.

Totally unsupported bullshit and scare mongering, Nutberg! If lockdown were a drug then you'd need to consider the side effects but only now are people thinking about that. Destroyed economies worldwide, people have listened to fools like you for far too long. They need to tell you go fuck off with your doom and gloom.

Professor Karol Sikora, a cancer specialist and head of Buckingham Medical School, said the findings of the Mail’s audit were a “stunning demonstration of lockdowns’ harmful effects across society”.

He added: “If lockdown were a drug, you’d need to consider the side effects, and yet we’re not – even though we seem to be diving headlong into another one.

“People sometimes claim it’s a question of health versus the economy, but it’s not – it’s health versus health.” Professor Sikora supports last week’s Great Barrington Declaration, now signed by more than 10,700 scientists and 29,700 doctors worldwide, calling on governments to adopt an approach of ‘focused protection’, shielding the vulnerable while opening up the economy.

Sunetra Gupta, one of the Declaration’s authors and an Oxford University epidemiologist, said: “These papers and data are starting to build the evidence to show that the collateral damage has been immense – and will continue with extreme measures such as lockdowns. The time has surely come to take their full costs measures into account.”

https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/10...ns-lethal-toll

[gemini104104]

Also the collateral damage of the lawlessly hacked in Putin b!tch tRump and his sold out republicans at coronavirus murdering over 200,000 America. This crimes against humanity atrocity in order to suck up to foreign and domestic enemies at proving that they are the elite enemies of America, humanity and anything else of a civilized nature.

[cancel2 2022]

.
A Comprehensive Case Against Lockdowns: How Dr. Ari Joffe Changed His Mind
.
Dr. Ari R Joffe, MD, teaches in the Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta and Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and is a member of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He was also an advocate of lockdowns. Then he saw what they did in practice. Now he has documented the carnage in what might be the most comprehensive paper yet published.

It is called: COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink

Here are his summary points.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population’s movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in an attempt to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. First, I explain how the initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects [i.e., groupthink]. Second, I summarize important information that has emerged relevant to the modeling, including about infection fatality rate, high-risk groups, herd immunity thresholds, and exit strategies. Third, I describe how reality started sinking in, with information on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, and information placing the number of deaths in context and perspective. Fourth, I present a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 that finds lockdowns are far more harmful to public health than COVID-19 can be. I close with some suggestions for moving forward.

The paper covers the failures of the models, the emergence of group think, the fear-based narrative, the emerging demographic data, the Swedish exception, the failure to balance costs and benefits, the role of the media, the psychological devastation, the carnage within the medical industry, the economic calamity, and much more, complete with some striking charts, among which:

And the conclusion: “We must open up society to save many more lives than we can by attempting to avoid every case (or even most cases) of COVID-19. It is past time to take an effortful pause, calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the trade-offs, and end the lockdown groupthink.

https://www.aier.org/article/a-compr...nged-his-mind/

[Darth Omar]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/88401 It would kill 1.5 million more and cost 80 billion in hospital costs. Think a million.5 deaths might result in some , mental and social problems? Of course it would.
You want to pile up the deaths, then going after herd immunity is a great way to achieve it. It would not mitigate the psychological costs either.

You have too much faith in mitigation lol.

The prediction you cited is predicated on *the assumption* that lockdown strategies actually depress death numbers in a significant way.

Since everyone is a fan of randomized control trials these days, where are the RCT studies on the efficacy of lockdowns? Danish workers did one on masks but they’re having some trouble in finding a publisher.

I’ll wait here.