In 2020, the “pandemic” year, and part of 2021, there were lockdowns against a supposedly new corona virus, SARS-CoV-2, against which our immune system was supposed to be powerless. With an infection mortality rate (IFR) of 0.15%, roughly equivalent to the infection mortality rate of influenza, SARS-CoV-2 was reportedly the “deadliest” of all known viruses to date.
And because Covid-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, was so terrible, containment measures were needed as long as there were no “vaccinations”. Because they only started in December 2020.
Very early on there were doubts that the lockdowns could achieve what they were introduced for:
However, anyone who expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the lockdowns was immediately classified as a “corona denier”, even though there was and has been no scientific justification for the effectiveness of lockdowns. One simply had to believe this and accept it without reflection and without contradiction. Then you were one of the good guys.
Now after about three years, our highly respected politicians and other “witnesses to Corona” are talking about the lockdown again, even though there is a “vaccination” against Covid-19 that will save us all and has been reported to be 95 percent effective. It was even claimed that only a “vaccination” would end the “pandemic”, including mandatory masks, distance and lockdowns. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
After 2020/2021 and after that, there were repeated attempts to trigger another hysteria like at the beginning of 2020. There was the monkeypox virus, which was declared a new “pandemic” by the WHO, but no one cared about it. Then the newspapers were full of the Marburg virus, which also failed to make a real impression, perhaps because it has been a known virus for years.
So now it seems to be time to build on the old successes of scaremongering from the beginning of 2020 and stir up a new hysteria regarding “new variants” of SARS-CoV-2. Lockdowns are likely to be part of this strategy and sooner or later the other AHA measures will also be included [1] be.
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. Clear edge.” to:
New lockdown study
On July 18, 2023, a new paper was published that examined the impact of lockdowns on excess mortality worldwide [2].
For this purpose, data from 43 countries and all US states were examined. The changes in excess mortality after the implementation of Covid-19 lockdowns were examined.
The result: In none of the countries and none of the US states was there a reduction in excess mortality during the lockdowns.
But it gets even worse: In the US states, excess mortality rose in the weeks when the lockdowns were introduced. However, the authors emphasize here that their statement does not mean that they see the lockdowns as the cause of the increased excess mortality. But there is this striking correlation.
My conclusion: The increase in excess mortality after the introduction of lockdowns at least allows us to conclude that, contrary to the official version, lockdowns did not lead to a decrease in excess mortality or general mortality. So if lockdowns could have reduced mortality due to Covid-19, what else did lockdowns cause that this reduction could never be observed, but rather the complete opposite – the increase in excess mortality?
The data for the international comparison looks very similar, as this graphic shows:
The two data sets are divided into above-average excess mortality and above-average excess mortality, the trends of which are compared with each other.
The vertical line marks the point where the lockdown was implemented. What is interesting here is A) that in all four variants excess mortality only increases significantly after implementation. And B) that for the USA, a decrease in excess mortality before the lockdown was either immediately reversed after the implementation (in the case of high excess mortality) or, in the case of low excess mortality, the decreasing trend was increased in the first 3-4 weeks, but then significantly decreased Height shot up.
Conclusion of the authors
„Overall, the results suggest that the implementation of the SIP measures does not appear to have achieved the goal of reducing excess mortality or COVID-19 deaths.“
My conclusion: If lockdowns and isolation measures are so successful, why can this happen: “57 Argentine fishermen test positive for the coronavirus despite being at sea for 35 days and testing negative before setting sail“ [3]?
By the way: If you are interested in this kind of information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. Clear edge.” to:
Sources:
Post image: pixabay.com – Tumisu
This featured image was created on October 8th, 2023.