Research Shows I Was Right In 2020
Destroying Society Does Not Save Society.
Every so often a bit of research emerges proving the truth of something I wrote when the lockdown lunacy first began.
From the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health comes a new study showing the high human costs of the COVID lockdowns—globally, they claimed 20 times the life years than they presumptively save1.
The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save.
The lockdowns were not merely slightly more damaging than the virus. The lockdowns were worse than the disease by multiple orders of magnitude.
This comes as no surprise.
In March of 2020, I argued that lockdowns were a foolish and dangerous attempt to “save” society by effectively destroying society.
It was not hard to forecast some of the costs that lockdowns would impose—that they had already imposed even then.
The Wall Street Journal estimates as many as 5 million jobs will be lost.
North Carolina has seen unemployment claims jump from an average of 3,000 to over 40,000.
Californians are experiencing a jump in the need for food assistance, while unemployment applications have jumped from 2,000 per day to as many as 80,000.
New York hotels and casinos have already lost some 20,000 jobs, and expect to lose more.
Nationwide, first-time unemployment claims have jumped 33%. As many as 23 million other jobs are in jeopardy.
The National Restaurant Association is forecasting losses of as much as $225 billion by its members, with 7 million jobs lost.
The stock markets have tanked at a rate not seen since 1987, and to a degree not seen since the Great Depression, and even trillions of Federal Reserve monetary stimulus has failed to arrest the slide.
Now come the historical research and analysis confirming the high human cost of the lockdowns. What was foreseen then came to pass—and in large measure is still with us.
The lunatic lockdowns cost humanity far more than it got in return. That is what the facts and the evidence and the data tell us. That is what the facts and the evidence and the data at the time were warning us.
It could have been avoided. It should have been avoided.
Yanovskiy, Moshe, and Yehoshua Socol. “Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health vol. 19,15 9295. 29 Jul. 2022, doi:10.3390/ijerph19159295
PNK, we could have put tax deductible $5 "treatment packs" in every checkout lane in America in two weeks for five billion dollars and five billion more would have continued it as long as necessary. With a media "blitz" about treatment, dosing, side effects, interactions, YES, we could have done this. Even Comrades Cuomo & DeBlasio could have contributed to the general good. Maybe even Gestapo Gretchen?
Of course, we would have had to be smart, and less corrupt.
So maybe we couldn't have.
I had an epidemiologist tell me claims of lockdowns being devastating were 'exaggerated'. He's also a public health policy expert who's often interviewed on national TV here i n Canada.
The response showed me he's just an asshole.