The lead researchers at the UK’s Center for Evidence Based Medicine were the authors of the Cochrane mask research review that Scientific American found so horrifying because it didn’t justify the totalitarian approach of forcing people to wear masks. Those authors have now written a review of whether lockdowns made any difference in infections or hospitalizations in the UK. While Scientific American believes in, well, belief, these researchers actually know how to look at and analyze data.
And when they do it for lockdowns, gee guess what, there is little evidence they made a whit of difference. (see China for further reference) It appears from the data in England, as everywhere else in the world, that there is no correlation between infection or hospitalization or death peaks and the implementation of lockdowns. Here is the fundamental reason. No one yet to this day really understands the survival and transport capability of this virus. It obviously can survive under a variety of circumstances for a far longer time than scientists have tended to estimate. And it can be transported over much longer distances than estimated. So locking down is a waste of time. Any one outside of a rigidly controlled environment can have virus on clothes, skin, MASKS are a great place for virus to be carried, and they have the virus go airborne and be inhaled.
And while everyone was engaging in futile lockdowns, as these authors also point out, they were causing a massive reduction in needed health care which has led to deaths and more serious disease. Not to mention the economic, educational and social toll. Beyond stupid. I am proud to be one of the people who stood up from the very start and opposed this insanity, and it is clear that the resisters told the truth that should have been obvious to everyone. (TE Substack)