A new study from the University of California and Rand found that the lockdowns didn’t save lives, and may have actually resulted in more deaths than if no lockdowns happened at all.
The scientific study concluded that following the implementation of shelter-in-place policies, excess mortality increased and that the increase in mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following implementation. ….
A deadly combination of exponentially increased suicides, drug overdose, homicide, alcohol consumption, calorie consumption, delayed cancer screenings, spousal abuse, tuberculosis, and more is occurring. Researchers conclude this combination will outweigh deaths from COVID by multiples.
Data show very clearly that lockdowns have not only been completely ineffective, but they have been potentially as much as ten times more deadly than the coronavirus itsel
The source
DailyVeracity 26 June 2021 ( https://www.dailyveracity.com/2021/06/26/massive-new-study-confirms-lockdowns-did-not-reduce-mortality-and-may-have-caused-excess-mortality/ )
My take on it
More evidence – as if we needed it – that lock-downs have a negative net benefit.. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”
And this research doesn’t appear to encompass the more recent cross-impact of gene therapy injections. To understand the adverse impact of lock-downs on people emotionally, is to understand how clever is an advertising program that makes freedom a condition of injection. Coercion by any other name. The consequent deaths and other adverse events will only tilt the case further against these policy measures.
Still the question is Why?
Why these counterproductive policy measures?
And why the continuing refusal to do proper impact assessments?
“Here are the 25 most stringent lockdown states graphed against the 25 least stringent; there must be a radical different between the two groups, right?
Shouldn’t those hospitalization numbers be wildly different? And yet you can’t even tell them apart.”
The source
Eric @IAmTheActualET on Twitter, cited by Dr Tom Woods
As a measure, ‘Hospitalisations’ has much to commend it, although the evidence suggests that it has been compromised by mis-attribution. We can only hope that the mis-attribution was balanced between the two quotients.
As for the implication, I am already persuaded.
How about you? What would it take?
Was it Benjamin Franklin who said, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”
So I’ll sign off with that ad line from Hyundai: “Please consider.”
A LANDMARK legal decision declared that regional containment policies – including lockdowns, social distancing, prohibitions on gatherings by family or friends) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The judge called the lockdowns a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives.”
The judge ruled that the government violated the “inviolably guaranteed human dignity” under basic German law.
…..
In the long term, containment-related excess mortality will likely be significantly larger than the death toll from COVID 19.
Since the containment policy in Thuringia is part of a general policy of almost all western industrialized countries, this damage is the indirect consequence also attributable to the pro rata and is therefore in principle linked to the examination of proportionality .
For this reason alone, the standards to be assessed here do not meet the requirement of proportionality. Added to this are the direct and indirect restrictions on freedom, gigantic financial damage, immense damage to health and spiritual damage.
The word ” disproportionate ” is too colorless to indicate the dimensions of what happened. The containment policy implemented by the Land government in the spring (and today again), of which the general ban on contact was (and remains) essential, is a catastrophic political error, with dramatic consequences for almost all sectors of human life, for society, for the State and for the countries of the South of the whole world ”.
Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,
Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.
Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Ham-burg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self- determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.
I. Basic Rights
Article 1 [Human dignity]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. (2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Article 2 [Personal Freedoms]
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law. (2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.
The German Basic Law dates from 1949. It was a provisional formulation by the Western Allies pending the reunification of Germany, and therefore the term ‘Constitution’ was avoided; but when reunification happened (in 1990) the German Basic Law remained in place, although it was never submitted to a popular vote.
The German Basic Law reflects the same high view of individual sovereignty that is reflected in the US Constitution and in the Constitution of Portugal (see my earlier post).
The Court found that the Administration had taken upon itself an authority reserved to the legslators.
The Court also found that (in any case) the data did not support the pretext put forward by government to justify the lock-down (and related measures). Indeed the judgment is worth reading just for the detailed data analysis on which the Court based its judgment.
The Court further found that the harmful effects of the government’s lock-down (and related) policies greatly outweighed any claimed benefit: ““There is no doubt that the number of deaths attributable to the measures of the containment policy exceeds by several times the number of deaths avoided by it.”
