IS ANOTHER LOCKDOWN COMING?
IS ANOTHER LOCKDOWN COMING?
It has been impossible not to notice how rapid and coordinated much of the world has backed off and away from Covid restrictions and associated vaccine mandates. Although scattered pockets of delusional and unscientific edicts still remain and are being resisted, much of society has moved on.
Once the signal was given to lighten up on societal micro-management via Covid restrictions, there has been a nonstop stream of acknowledgments and admissions. These mea culpas were often delivered by the very cheerleaders of lockdowns and forced shots: Their many mistakes. Their outright failures. Their self-assured shortcomings. Their angry finger pointing. Their shameless feigned ignorance.
An official inquiry by Sweden into its pandemic response found that recurring lockdowns imposed across Europe were neither "necessary" nor “defensible.”
The Telegraph recently reported on the Swedish Coronavirus Commission’s final report. It strongly supported the country’s pandemic strategy, and concluded that the decision to rely primarily on "advice and recommendations which people were expected to follow voluntarily" had been "fundamentally correct.”
A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on Covid-19 mortality released in January 2022 by Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics and Global Health grabbed the attention of the science community in a big way. It concluded:
“…lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”
In Robert Dingwell’s recent piece titled Never again must we repeat the errors of the Covid lockdowns, the former UK advisor at SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), expounded on lessons we must never do again. He stated:
“Do not rely on the blunt instruments of law and fear to bring the population along for a long haul. These will always produce conflict and injustice, weakening trust in government and public health institutions.”
Far from a settled scientific consensus, all circumstantial evidence points to scientific groupthink steering the pandemic restrictions, absent real world evidence and any debate. The bedfellow and prime mover of this operation was the Big Tech and corporate media complex working in tandem with well-connected internal government factions.
Scientists outside this guarded, dominant narrative, no matter how credentialed, stood little chance to influence its trajectory and, in some cases, saw their careers and reputations attacked.
This Big Pharma-friendly establishment created a formulaic censorship process that snared unsuspecting scientists, medical professionals and researchers who voiced valid observations and evidence that ran counter to the lockdown and mandatory vaccine paradigm.
One high-profile example was Pierre Kory, MD’s battle to get the cheap, widely available anti-viral Ivermectin recognized as an effective, early treatment. Although suppressed during its greatest time of need, evidence-based early treatment outside the limited and often ineffective standard of care is now being recognized.
A major shift in consciousness is underway as legislative pathways are making room for physicians to practice medicine once again. Doctors are becoming free to use their best clinical judgement sans Big Brother intervention.
Could effective early intervention be crushed again if we’re told another variant has become a threat and lockdowns are needed? States like Florida, Nebraska and others are already legislatively protecting open medical care. It may prove an uphill battle for Federal agencies to deny treatments like HCQ, Ivermectin or whatever simple solution is available against a growing front of politically leadership and an activated medical community that refuses to allow itself to get steamrolled twice.
Additionally, the legacy media’s influence was dealt a possibly fatal blow in its battle to neutralize Ivermectin. What has come to be known as the Joe Rogan horse paste moment, the media was forced to realize they are no longer as influential as they believed they were. That meme-in-real life was played out in realtime when CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta tried, and failed spectacularly, to defend his network’s bias on Rogan’s podcast.
Another example which shaped the trajectory of the flawed pandemic response was the attempted neutralization of the Great Barrington Declaration and its three highly credentialed primary authors.
The Declaration’s original signatories promoted a policy called “focused protection” of high-risk populations. Its authors strongly cautioned to avoid lockdowns. They predicted it would lead to known, heavy burdens on the working class and younger members of society, bringing irreparable damage and disproportionate harm to society’s underprivileged.
Tragically, time has shown these authors were right. Rates of mental health disparities among the youth have skyrocketed alongside global food prices. Meanwhile, local and national economic infrastructure and workforces may have been mortally wounded. Many have watched these events affect their families and their hometowns. Already struggling populations will not go willingly into lockdowns in the same manner again. The sustained worldwide protests throughout 2021 are proof of this.
People are also increasingly aware of the naked acts of censorship by those in positions of power. It’s no longer in the shadows. Their former pandemic leaders bullied critics in order to eliminate debate and the implementation of proven, less societally-destructive pandemic responses.
A personal email from then-NIH director Francis Collins to Dr. Fauci hyperventilated that three ‘fringe epidemiologists’ had dared challenge the medical-industrial complex:
”There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,” Dr. Collins wrote. “Is it underway?” he asked on October 8, 2020 – four days after The Declaration was published publicly.
In order to attempt another lockdown, governments would need to promote the success of their actions over the last two years. Yet on the scale of both public and scientific opinion, the failures and evidence of harm has outweighed any illusionary positives or public relations talking points rolled out by D.C. think tanks and the Ad Council.
Although the Covid frenzy has now taken a backseat to much larger geopolitical events, one has to ask if it was a coincidence that during the same month that most of the final Covid restrictions were eased, a war began in Ukraine. What do you think?