Research published in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal EClinicalMedicine found that lockdowns do not lead to any noticeable reduction in mortality rates.
Elderly people are still more at risk than everybody else of getting sick or dying, while those at low risk who are stuck inside only end up losing wages and adopting bad habits like smoking, which is far more dangerous than contracting COVID-19.
Early on in the “pandemic,” the argument went that lockdowns resulted in fewer “cases” of COVID-19. However, research out of Germany found that the spread of the novel virus had “receded autonomously … before any interventions” were imposed.
It is now believed that so-called “herd immunity” was achieved all on its own, making mask mandates and forced lockdowns a pointless effort, despite their continued persistence.
Similar observances were noted in the United Kingdom, where lockdowns were some of the strictest in the world. Researchers there discovered that the COVID-19 caseload had begun to plummet before lockdowns were imposed.
“A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to U.K. data on COVID-19 deaths and the published disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before U.K. lockdown, and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a short time later,” a University of Bristol paper found.
Another similar paper out of Germany was more direct in declaring that the purported effects of lockdowns are “pure artefacts” that “contradict the data.”
The researchers involved with this one determined that lockdowns in the U.K. were “both superfluous and ineffective,” as was “social distancing.” Sweden, meanwhile, was:
“… the only country in the dataset that refrained from strong measures, but has lower corona deaths per capita than Belgium, Italy, Spain, or the United Kingdom.”
No comments:
Post a Comment