Lock downs can never work, can not end an epidemic, and kill more by making it last longer

[zaangalewa]

...

Every case of Polio was a damned disaster. The death rate was unimportant in this case. And a natural vaccination ("Polio-Party") did fortunatelly never anyone do. This virus - like many others as for example the dangerous measels - never reached a natural herd immunity. The herd immmunity came with the artificial vaccination against Polio.

 

[zaangalewa]

Polio was once one of the most feared diseases in the U.S. In the early 1950s, before polio vaccines were available, polio outbreaks caused more than 15,000 cases of paralysis each year. Following introduction of vaccines—specifically, trivalent inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 1955 and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in 1963—the number of polio cases fell rapidly to less than 100 in the 1960s and fewer than 10 in the 1970s.

The number of deaths were on a steep decline before the vaccine was used/available.

Forget this conspiracy theory. That's nonsense. Without vaccinations in the world would be much more disaster.

Here a video about the situation in Germany in times of "Kinderlähmung" (=Polio) - it was diffcult here to reach the level "herd immunity" with vaccines. This turned around in 1961 and was rachendithe nedle oif teh 60ies. But today everyone in the world has still a problem with Polio, because this viri are still active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because radical Islamists in those countries fight against vaccinations.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.

Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.

I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.

 

[OldLady]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.

Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?

I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.

Vaccines are a great way to implement herd immunity, but they take too long.
There were a number of separate polio epidemics, not just one, and all the previous had been ended by herd immunity, so we know what the profile of a polio epidemic looks like, and it was essentially over by the vaccine distribution in 1957.

If they were "ended by herd immunity," how did we end up with more and more epidemics of it? An 18 year old uncle of mine died of it in 1926. I personally have known three people crippled by it for life, all in later epidemics. I thought herd immunity was supposed to END it. It doesn't look to me as if herd immunity ended it, the vaccine did.

 

[OldLady]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

Wasn't 30,000 deaths WITH precautions? I don't think we know, do we, how many deaths there would have been without precautions? What would it look like if we did what you're suggesting? Just going back to normal with the medical providers being ready for many deaths?

 

[OldLady]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.

Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?

I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.

The first polio epidemic in the US was in 1894.
Then 1916, 1921, and again in 1948.

The fact these earlier ones were wiped out without a vaccine, and only by herd immunity is the reason to assume it was not the vaccine that ended the 1948 epidemic either.

But there is nothing wrong with vaccines.
They are the safest way to achieve herd immunity.
But they normally take over 5 years, which is too long to wait.
And if we try to do it in 1 year, it make be more fatal than the virus itself.

When my uncle died in '26, the whole family was in strict quarantine, and when he died, the entire family had to move out so the house could be fumigated. The health officials were taking precautions.

 

[OldLady]

The lock downs were only meant to last a month or 2.

There were 2 goals.
- Don't overwhelm the hospitals (flatten the curve)
- Buy time so we could invent some tools against the virus

Trump has been SCREAMING to open things up again!

Democrats are keeping things closed!

So OP is correct. A lock down does not stop the spread of a virus...it only slows its spread.

That is why humans have quarantined infected people and keep them isolated.

They quarantine the infected person----------------they don't quarantine everyone else.

But Turtle, they've been doing that since day one and it hasn't stopped it. What would suddenly make it work?

 

[Billy_Bob]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Wrong.

“It’s a complete myth that you can just let the epidemic rage, protect the vulnerable, and achieve herd immunity. What may happen is…you fill the hospitals, you fill the morgues, and then the next year it happens again,” he says. “You’re not going to get enough people infected to achieve herd immunity and therefore you’ll have done it all for nothing.”

Herd immunity alone won’t stop COVID-19. Here’s why.

You assume, as does he, that the human body will not react to like viruses. This is patently FALSE. We are seeing roughly 45% of people have a T-Cell reaction that stops this virus or makes the contraction so mild they do not know they are ill. Current studies show we are near 20-24% of people who have active antibodies. This puts those who will not get this virus at about 60%. Nearing Herd immunity already even with our lockdowns.

 

[Billy_Bob]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.

Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.

I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.

NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.

At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.

The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.

 

[Rigby5]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

219,000 deaths? lol, try more like 2019.

No the virus kills about 30,000 a month, so it was imperative to do a strategy to END the virus as quickly as possible.
There is ONLY one way to do that, herd immunity, regardless of how one tried to augment or accelerate herd immunity.
But what we did instead was to make the epidemic last longer with a lock down.
So instead of it being gone in 2 months, killing only 60,000, it has already killed 220,000 and will NEVER end until we switch over to herd immunity instead of the lock down.
So already we have to blame the lock down strategy for 160,000 needless deaths.
We can't blame those deaths on the virus because they could have been avoided.
And the needless deaths can go on forever.
220,000 - 60,000 = 160,000.

 

[Rigby5]

The lock downs were only meant to last a month or 2.

There were 2 goals.
- Don't overwhelm the hospitals (flatten the curve)
- Buy time so we could invent some tools against the virus

Trump has been SCREAMING to open things up again!

Democrats are keeping things closed!

So OP is correct. A lock down does not stop the spread of a virus...it only slows its spread.

That is why humans have quarantined infected people and keep them isolated.

They quarantine the infected person----------------they don't quarantine everyone else.

It depends on how one tries to accelerate herd immunity.
If you ask for young volunteer for deliberate infection, they would be easy to quarantine.
But if one allows herd immunity to happen randomly, then it might not be a bad idea to just quarantine the elderly for a month, just to ensure the lowest death rate.

 

[Rigby5]

... ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic. ...

And because of this weird wrong idea you like to vaccinate people with an active, living - now fortunatelly not any more totally unknown - new virus? You don't have any idea what you speak about, isn't it? Because you are not able to wait and you do not like to fight against this virus you like to surrender and to produce a worst case scenario on your own artificially. To exxegerate stupidity and cowardice helps no one.

Wrong. We know all about coronaviruses, and this is not a new virus, but just a slight hybrid between existing coronavirus families.
We also know all about epidemics, and know that ONLY herd immunity will EVER stop any epidemic.
Nothing else ever has stopped any epidemic, and we know lock downs only make them last even longer.
We know exactly how infectious and lethal covid-19 is, and it is no more infectious or lethal than flu.
And it is not a question of not being ABLE to wait, but that WAITING is DEADLY with an epidemic.
The covid-19 epidemic is killing about 30,000 a month.
It continues to do so no matter how much you try to lock down.
So clearly waiting is the worst possible strategy of all, and killed the most people.
The only way to prevent any deaths is to end the virus as quickly as possible, with herd immunity.
Anything else is deliberate murder.

 

[Rigby5]

... 219,000 deaths? lol, try more like 2019.

Intentional ignorance also help nothing. Why for heavens sake fight so many US-Americans for a deadly virus? If you would be a soldier in a war between nations, then it could happen that you would be shot down now from your own comrades because of collaboration with the enemy.

Locks downs are murder because they increase the death toll by continuing the epidemic longer than necessary.
Herd immunity is the only way to end any epidemic, so the sooner you implement it, the fewer deaths.

 

[Rigby5]

I am not a doctor nor do I pretend as others to have all the answers, however, I agree isolation is a containment option which will only result in prolonging the viability of the contagion. Herd immunity on the other hand is a step forward in discovering a vaccine. The elephant in the room appears to be opportunity cost. At what point is the damage resulting from mandatory isolation and containment greater than the acceptance of herd immunity and possibility of developing a vaccine. People have the right and freedom to assume risk, therefore the consequences for their actions, regretfully the government is exercising its power to strip away the freedoms we take for granted. Once freedom is taken away it is gone forever and you become subjects of the dictatorial state.

Question. What happens when you purposefully infect a nation of 320 million with a pathogen that has a mortality of 1 percent? I don't think the math is hard and I personally don't believe the result of that little math sum should be ignored in the name of freedom of choice.

Murdering someone is a usually a choice too. Pretty sure you don't mind the government punishing those making that choice.

First of all, you only infect 30 million people who are under 38, in order to achieve herd immunity.
That is all you need because those asymptomatic prove most already are inherently immune, and the young essentially have no significant mortality, with less than 50,000 deaths.
That is less than the normal death rate of covid-19 for 2 months anyway.

Second is that covid-19 does NOT have a mortality rate of 1%. Now that we know 90% of the infected are asymptomatic and were therefore not being tested or counted, we know now the average mortality rate is 0,1% instead.
But it is actually since we can select only volunteers under 38 years old, we can also reduce that by at least another order of magnitude, to bring it down to 0,01%.

The math is not at all hard. If we continue with the lock down, the final death toll will be at least 100 times greater than if we immediately implement accelerated herd immunity with those under 38.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem with lock downs is they just "flatten the curve", and the reality is that when you do that it just increases the area under the curve, which are deaths.
The best solutions to epidemics are the ones that are quickest.

There was a somewhat valid argument around the “flatten the curve” slogan.

Early on, there were fears that the disease would spread so rapidly, and be so severe, that medical care facilities would be overwhelmed with people needing medical care because of it. The point was not to reduce the overall number of people who eventually get sick from the disease, but to slow the initial spread of it, so that the number of patients needing hospitalization would be within the capacity of existing facilities to happen.

The huge surge in seriously sick people needing hospitalization didn't happen. Perhaps some credit can be given to early efforts to “flatten the curve”, but by far the biggest reason that it didn't happen is that the #CoronaHoax2020 virus simply is not nearly as contagious or serious as we've been led to believe.

In fact, as a result of this early hysteria, many hospitals and health care facilities have found themselves in very bad financial straits, because they turned away a lot of genuine, legitimate business, in order to make way for the #CoronaHoax surge that never happened. And many people have been seriously harmed, and at least a few have even died, as a result of being denied medical care deemed “nonessential”, because the facilities where they would have received this care were bracing for the nonexistent #CoronaHoax2020 surge.

Once again, the hysteria and overreaction to the #CoronaHoax causes far more harm than the virus itself ever directly could have caused.

 

[Rigby5]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.

Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.

I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.

NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.

At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.

The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.

Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.

But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The more I hear about lockdowns, the more it looks like a Democrat plan to take away the economy issue from Trump in this election year.

I think that is very close to the true motive behind this.

I think the primary intent was to create an economic disaster, and try to blame Trump for it. I think it will unavoidably backfire. Just how stupid do the Democraps think we are, that they can pull such a stunt, and we won't see that it is they who did it; that we will believe that Trump is responsible for the results of what everyone can clearly see is the Democraps' doing?

Pretty much the same with their encouraging and supporting the subhuman pieces of shit who have been rioting and looting and causing all manner of violence, destruction, and theft. Again, they've been trying to tell us that Trump is somehow responsible for all of that; when all of us can clearly see who is really responsible for it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.

Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.

I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.

NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.

At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.

The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.

Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.

But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.

At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem with lock downs is they just "flatten the curve", and the reality is that when you do that it just increases the area under the curve, which are deaths.
The best solutions to epidemics are the ones that are quickest.

There was a somewhat valid argument around the “flatten the curve” slogan.

Early on, there were fears that the disease would spread so rapidly, and be so severe, that medical care facilities would be overwhelmed with people needing medical care because of it. The point was not to reduce the overall number of people who eventually get sick from the disease, but to slow the initial spread of it, so that the number of patients needing hospitalization would be within the capacity of existing facilities to happen.

The huge surge in seriously sick people needing hospitalization didn't happen. Perhaps some credit can be given to early efforts to “flatten the curve”, but by far the biggest reason that it didn't happen is that the #CoronaHoax2020 virus simply is not nearly as contagious or serious as we've been led to believe.

In fact, as a result of this early hysteria, many hospitals and health care facilities have found themselves in very bad financial straits, because they turned away a lot of genuine, legitimate business, in order to make way for the #CoronaHoax surge that never happened. And many people have been seriously harmed, and at least a few have even died, as a result of being denied medical care deemed “nonessential”, because the facilities where they would have received this care were bracing for the nonexistent #CoronaHoax2020 surge.

Once again, the hysteria and overreaction to the #CoronaHoax causes far more harm than the virus itself ever directly could have caused.

Agreed.
At first we did not have the data to know or predict, so slowing it down gave us more time.
But now it is killing 30,000 a month with nothing gained, and it could go on doing that forever.
Now we must end it as quickly as possible.
Covid-19 is just like the flu and should be treated as such.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Stupid is as stupid posts.

A point that you've demonstrated many times.