Lockdowns did have benefits as well as being a disaster. The air was cleaner for a start which has implications for respiratory disease.
However, in 2020 they rebranded the 'flu. This was why the 'flu almost disappeared from the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19. Rebranding is a standard business practice when sales are falling and has occurred at regular intervals over the years.
I worked out the scam in 2020 and I had hoped that the vast majority would have worked out the fraud by now, but sadly academic statisticians in their ivory towers miss the blindingly obvious that we don’t shut down the economy for the ‘flu.
Still I suppose they can't risk losing their careers by admitting they messed up so badly, can they?
Thank you for this and your common sense approach. What really concerns me is that leaders haven’t learned the necessary lessons. When the next pandemic arrives I’m not convinced we will be adequately prepared again. Just the simple recognition that COV SARS 2 is airborne seems difficult for the IPC to accept. ‘Leaders’ therefore ‘follow the scientific advice’ and little action follows. No one wants lockdowns but when there is a lack of preparedness and lessons have not been learned that might be the only choice available.
Throughout the last five years I've looked to what you have to say on this Christina and you always have facts, figures and common sense to help us. What I can't believe is that we still haven't done anything about air extraction in public spaces. Libraries, schools, hospitals, shops, places of work. All just a collection of boiling pots for virus multiplication. I went to lunch with 2 friends today. I wished I could walk out. The high street cafe/bar place was packed and despite the sun streaming in from the garden (with some seating) the French doors were kept closed unless someone was walking through. I hate crowds now. I'd happily not go anywhere again, but then I'm a drifter at heart, an introvert, so I really don't need to be with loads of other people. The one thing I miss is the theatre.
I wish we had learned to respect virus and to clean up our public environment. I fear that when the next pandemic hits, people will just ignore the advice, whatever it is, and inflict harm on others for the sheer need to always put themselves first in our selfish society.
I feel so sorry for school kids and students. They are being hammered with repeat infections and nobody cares.
It's the old story of everyone wants change IE no more pandemics or the consequences of same but no one wants to change their behaviour eg better ventilation, masks in healthcare scenarios or paying for resilience.
Thank you for the clarity and cogency ( again). We have a battery of public health strategies, should use them all as needed and proportionately. We should not be intimidated by anti science ideologists and conspiratorial proselytisers. The next pandemic could well be characterised by an organism of higher pathogenicity and communicability than the SARS COV 2 virus. Early lockdowns may well be needed to reduce deaths and both acute and chronic morbidity.
We should also learn from what happens in other similar countries, the best control experiments that we have. In Australia during lock down the nation had some 15,000 negative excess deaths. People were not dying of other causes because of the measures we took. Of course, it helps to be an island at the end of the Earth but this makes the 'negative excess deaths' estimate more compelling and, perhaps, relevant to other country's analyses where Covid deaths would have overwhelmed the 'negative excess deaths' signal
How have we determined that it was lockdown that is behind the mental health crisis in the UK from the COVID infection itself which often infects the nervous system and brain with cognitive impact?. That children were least protected by vaccines would make them the most vulnerable group to infection after lockdowns finished?
This looks to be an interesting substack, just subscribed been directed here by others.
Fully agree with the title perhaps I would paraphrase it as needs to work smarter, we certainly can't afford another £300+ billion spend.
In my lay research on Covid etc I have come across some surprising findings that I feel could be included in a new smarter way of working.
1. WHO - major funders Germany ( I am aware of the connection) and US. Germany Govt financially supported BioNTec who now had a product to sell and a political imperative to grow a life science industry, therefore has a vested interest in pushing a vaxx. US arguably the source of the virus has Pfizer and Moderna as commercial entities. Should we be taking advice and/or guidance from the WHO in the future - seems to me to be less than independent advice, and the same goes for the US?
2. Immunology 101 - respiratory virus vaxxs eg Covid, are difficult to make and lack effectiveness, I am reliably informed. Clearly, a vaxx for the common cold has been researched since Adam was a lad, yet we still do not have one. The mRNA RSV vaxx trial in kids has been paused because it was causing too many RSV infections - yes I have written that correctly! The current flu vaxx in the southern hemisphere has 35% effectiveness, by the time it gets here and is two strains of virus behind it will likely be less than 35% Perhaps a vaxx is not a major player in the toolkit for the next respiratory viral infection
,
3. Just to provide context, People die - UK death figures 650,000 pa in normal times ie on average 1800 per day, each and every day with seasonal spikes, as Covid had
It seems to me that there is so very, very much that could be implemented right now that would prepare for the inevitable next pandemic, but would also make the world a safer and a better place. However, I fear that people just want their old lives back (not better lives), and governments and businesses desire economic growth at any price (with little regard for the planet). As you have indicated, an intelligent society would view what has been (and continues to be) experienced as gold-dust (or at least grist) for the creation of a modern society which genuinely values both community and individuals, and seeks to help young, middle-aged and old alike to flourish.
Adults are NOT more vulnerable..all along that myth was DIS proven .. the myth was started by the AAP , then the myth grew and lives on now. The AAP deleted this page by Aug 2020.
The myth that adults are more vulnerable is the same myth that kids are less vulnerable...Dr Kirkiing at the CDC and her strong citation of research with strong methods is in the URL below. We must respect science over right wing myths.
A lot of the restrictions were based on very little knowledge of the disease at the time. There was, and still is, very little discussion about which restrictions had a big impact, and which restrictions had negligible impact, and with hindsight were pointless to impose. It seems to be overwhelmingly a disease which is spread in poorly ventilated locations, so making this the focus of restrictions, rather than limiting/prohibiting outdoor activities would have been sensible, along with a more mature attitude towards "these are the restrictions which were pretty pointless in the first lockdown, so we're not going to do them in the second lockdown".
The rules/restrictions around visiting the elderly, the dying and congregating at funerals seem to me to have been disproportionate and needlessly cruel, and I'm not sure actually had much impact on reducing overall transmission. If we have to have another lockdown, I will lobby hard to have exclusions for end-of-life gatherings, even at the risk of slightly increased transmission rates.
More research is needed on whether education should close down during lockdowns, or whether the benefits of keeping it going outweigh the downsides of increased contacts such a policy engenders. One cynical view of education is that it is really not a lot more than a giant childcare facility that allows parents to go to work, unencumbered by a need to look after their children. In this case, the answer is obviously "yes".
Lockdowns did have benefits as well as being a disaster. The air was cleaner for a start which has implications for respiratory disease.
However, in 2020 they rebranded the 'flu. This was why the 'flu almost disappeared from the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19. Rebranding is a standard business practice when sales are falling and has occurred at regular intervals over the years.
I worked out the scam in 2020 and I had hoped that the vast majority would have worked out the fraud by now, but sadly academic statisticians in their ivory towers miss the blindingly obvious that we don’t shut down the economy for the ‘flu.
Still I suppose they can't risk losing their careers by admitting they messed up so badly, can they?
I couldn't agree more.
We need to learn from countries like Taiwan that didn't need a lockdown because they had such an effective test, trace and isolate system.
Thank you for this and your common sense approach. What really concerns me is that leaders haven’t learned the necessary lessons. When the next pandemic arrives I’m not convinced we will be adequately prepared again. Just the simple recognition that COV SARS 2 is airborne seems difficult for the IPC to accept. ‘Leaders’ therefore ‘follow the scientific advice’ and little action follows. No one wants lockdowns but when there is a lack of preparedness and lessons have not been learned that might be the only choice available.
Throughout the last five years I've looked to what you have to say on this Christina and you always have facts, figures and common sense to help us. What I can't believe is that we still haven't done anything about air extraction in public spaces. Libraries, schools, hospitals, shops, places of work. All just a collection of boiling pots for virus multiplication. I went to lunch with 2 friends today. I wished I could walk out. The high street cafe/bar place was packed and despite the sun streaming in from the garden (with some seating) the French doors were kept closed unless someone was walking through. I hate crowds now. I'd happily not go anywhere again, but then I'm a drifter at heart, an introvert, so I really don't need to be with loads of other people. The one thing I miss is the theatre.
I wish we had learned to respect virus and to clean up our public environment. I fear that when the next pandemic hits, people will just ignore the advice, whatever it is, and inflict harm on others for the sheer need to always put themselves first in our selfish society.
I feel so sorry for school kids and students. They are being hammered with repeat infections and nobody cares.
It's the old story of everyone wants change IE no more pandemics or the consequences of same but no one wants to change their behaviour eg better ventilation, masks in healthcare scenarios or paying for resilience.
Thank you for the clarity and cogency ( again). We have a battery of public health strategies, should use them all as needed and proportionately. We should not be intimidated by anti science ideologists and conspiratorial proselytisers. The next pandemic could well be characterised by an organism of higher pathogenicity and communicability than the SARS COV 2 virus. Early lockdowns may well be needed to reduce deaths and both acute and chronic morbidity.
Typo: First let’s revisit the actual choice that faced the goovernment in March 2023… should be 2020. Sorry to be picky.
There is no such thing as a real pandemic. That is the whole point. The only reason to make such claims is to provide cover for poisoning people.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H8u6xzpR1LXL/
I think you are in the wrong place for that nonsense mate. Jog on.
I think Samantha may struggle to find many sensible people here, Sue, so you are probably right.
5 years on and still people miss the blindingly obvious that the 'flu got rebranded in 2020. Sad, isn't it?
We should also learn from what happens in other similar countries, the best control experiments that we have. In Australia during lock down the nation had some 15,000 negative excess deaths. People were not dying of other causes because of the measures we took. Of course, it helps to be an island at the end of the Earth but this makes the 'negative excess deaths' estimate more compelling and, perhaps, relevant to other country's analyses where Covid deaths would have overwhelmed the 'negative excess deaths' signal
How have we determined that it was lockdown that is behind the mental health crisis in the UK from the COVID infection itself which often infects the nervous system and brain with cognitive impact?. That children were least protected by vaccines would make them the most vulnerable group to infection after lockdowns finished?
Thanks a lot for a sober accessment. But sadly mankind won't learn from it.
This looks to be an interesting substack, just subscribed been directed here by others.
Fully agree with the title perhaps I would paraphrase it as needs to work smarter, we certainly can't afford another £300+ billion spend.
In my lay research on Covid etc I have come across some surprising findings that I feel could be included in a new smarter way of working.
1. WHO - major funders Germany ( I am aware of the connection) and US. Germany Govt financially supported BioNTec who now had a product to sell and a political imperative to grow a life science industry, therefore has a vested interest in pushing a vaxx. US arguably the source of the virus has Pfizer and Moderna as commercial entities. Should we be taking advice and/or guidance from the WHO in the future - seems to me to be less than independent advice, and the same goes for the US?
2. Immunology 101 - respiratory virus vaxxs eg Covid, are difficult to make and lack effectiveness, I am reliably informed. Clearly, a vaxx for the common cold has been researched since Adam was a lad, yet we still do not have one. The mRNA RSV vaxx trial in kids has been paused because it was causing too many RSV infections - yes I have written that correctly! The current flu vaxx in the southern hemisphere has 35% effectiveness, by the time it gets here and is two strains of virus behind it will likely be less than 35% Perhaps a vaxx is not a major player in the toolkit for the next respiratory viral infection
,
3. Just to provide context, People die - UK death figures 650,000 pa in normal times ie on average 1800 per day, each and every day with seasonal spikes, as Covid had
Personally, I found Prof Martin Neil's presentation to the Scottish Covid Inquiry very useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBjalO8b2EI
As you say Germany does fund the WHO substantially and has a vested interest along with the US in pushing the vax.
Martin Neil is quite correct, there was no pandemic, only a medical panic over the rebranded 'flu.
After having read your excellent posting, Christina, I then read this:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-that-never-locked-down-for-covid-19
It seems to me that there is so very, very much that could be implemented right now that would prepare for the inevitable next pandemic, but would also make the world a safer and a better place. However, I fear that people just want their old lives back (not better lives), and governments and businesses desire economic growth at any price (with little regard for the planet). As you have indicated, an intelligent society would view what has been (and continues to be) experienced as gold-dust (or at least grist) for the creation of a modern society which genuinely values both community and individuals, and seeks to help young, middle-aged and old alike to flourish.
Adults are NOT more vulnerable..all along that myth was DIS proven .. the myth was started by the AAP , then the myth grew and lives on now. The AAP deleted this page by Aug 2020.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200731235742/https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/#:~:text=Policy%20makers%20must,children%20at%20home.
The myth that adults are more vulnerable is the same myth that kids are less vulnerable...Dr Kirkiing at the CDC and her strong citation of research with strong methods is in the URL below. We must respect science over right wing myths.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16AMVmGh1yaf5Jxm4EZD6lKfUaMCFyhwBPs2p-QWFMMI/edit?usp=drivesdk
https://youtu.be/70Xhn3K9SlQ?t=2858
"as you can see there is not a statistical difference in secondary infection rate for children primary cases relative to adult primary cases" 51:39
"there is no statistical difference in secondary infection rate for child contacts compared to adult contacts" 51:58
"school-age children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 17 have had infection rates similar to those in some of the adult age categories
A lot of the restrictions were based on very little knowledge of the disease at the time. There was, and still is, very little discussion about which restrictions had a big impact, and which restrictions had negligible impact, and with hindsight were pointless to impose. It seems to be overwhelmingly a disease which is spread in poorly ventilated locations, so making this the focus of restrictions, rather than limiting/prohibiting outdoor activities would have been sensible, along with a more mature attitude towards "these are the restrictions which were pretty pointless in the first lockdown, so we're not going to do them in the second lockdown".
The rules/restrictions around visiting the elderly, the dying and congregating at funerals seem to me to have been disproportionate and needlessly cruel, and I'm not sure actually had much impact on reducing overall transmission. If we have to have another lockdown, I will lobby hard to have exclusions for end-of-life gatherings, even at the risk of slightly increased transmission rates.
More research is needed on whether education should close down during lockdowns, or whether the benefits of keeping it going outweigh the downsides of increased contacts such a policy engenders. One cynical view of education is that it is really not a lot more than a giant childcare facility that allows parents to go to work, unencumbered by a need to look after their children. In this case, the answer is obviously "yes".
Thank you. Such a clear-eyed analysis as always.