How There Was Never Evidence that Lockdowns Work to Combat Viruses

Last Updated on November 5, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • The public was told something false during the pandemic, that lockdowns are advised to combat the spread of viruses.


Governments and public health spokesmen like Dr. Fauci have supported and performed lockdowns globally. During the pandemic, the populations in these countries assumed that there was scientific support for enacting lockdowns. This article will demonstrate that there was never any scientific support for the lockdowns and that they were politically rather than scientifically motivated.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Agreeing to Lockdowns Under the Assumption That The Government Knew Something

The explanation of lockdowns has been that they are temporary and that anyone who disagrees with the lockdowns is unreasonable and “anti-science” as they are only temporary. However, the lockdowns have now been made somewhat permanent because there is always some new development that requires the extension of the lockdown.

The lockdowns were only agreed to by most of the population because they believed they would be temporary. Once governments obtain buy-in on the lockdown, they extend lockdowns until the original agreement on the lockdowns is forgotten. This is called “moving the goalposts.” this is expressed in the following quotation.

“It is not inconceivable that restrictions could remain in place until ……..” no end date. The lockdown was always going to be permanent.

This quote illustrates the constantly moving the goalpost.

It’s only for a few weeks to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, masks are only a small inconvenience, it’s only on public transport, it’s only only for a little while longer until we get a vaccines, it’s only until the most vulnerable are vaccinated, it’s only one Christmas, it’s only until the over 50s are vaccinated, it’s only until we are past the peak, it’s only until the majority have been vaccinated, it’s only until we get the data on the new variant, it’s only until June 21, it’s only a four week delay, it will only be until those aged 12 to 15 are jabbed, it’s only another Christmas.

I recently took a flight out of the country. I encountered a TSA controlled security process where I was full-body scanned as were my bags, in what was supposed to be a response to 9/11, which it is now apparent was performed not by the CIA constructed Bin Laden and the faux “Al Qaeda” but by the Bush Administration (to get us into two wars costing roughly $5.6 trillion). And in the line were people all with masks, who were conditioned to wear these masks to keep “safe” against a virus created in the Wuhan Institute Lab with the help of a grant from Fauci’s NIH, as I cover in the article How the US, China, and the NIH and Dr. Fauci Promulgated the Coronavirus.

Security is always the excuse to take away people’s freedoms.

The Scientific Literature on Major Coronavirus Policy Issues

It was amazing to read some of the scientific literature on viruses that I found from links in articles I read for writing the article you are reading now. What struck me is how the scientific literature directly contradicted what Fauci and CNN/NBC/etc. have advised, which is now accepted as gospel. Let us take the topic of lockdowns.

Journal Quotes on Topic #1: On the Topic of Lockdowns to Mitigate Against the Spread of Viruses

A historical review of communities in the U.S. during the 1918 influenza pandemic identified only two that escaped serious mortality and morbidity. Both communities had completely cut themselves off for months from the outside world. One was a remote town in the Colorado mountains, and the other was a naval training station on an island in San Francisco Bay. Obviously, this is not a strategy of general utility. Other studies have suggested that, except in the most extreme applications, disease mitigation measures have not had a significant impact on altering the course of an influenza pandemic.

In previous influenza epidemics, the impact of school closings on illness rates has been mixed. A study from Israel reported a decrease in respiratory infections after a 2-week teacher strike, but the decrease was only evident for a single day.

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. – Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza

And this one.

For example, even in retrospect, it is not clear whether isolation or quarantine had the greater impact in stopping the spread of SARS, or whether both control measures were essential. Second, if the duration of the asymptomatic period is too long, then it will be extremely difficult to identify those individuals that are likely to have been infected by a given infected person (by virtue of their having had many contacts during the asymptomatic phase). Furthermore, if the asymptomatic period is very long, then the quarantine period must also be correspondingly long (21). Such lengthy quarantine periods would be very difficult to implement, again making it unlikely that q can be made very large. – American Journal of Epidemiology

This quote is amazing as it proposes that lockdowns are primarily performed for political reasons.

During an emergency, it should be expected that implementation of some NPIs, such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence.

Access to education has been rapidly decreasing due to the pandemic. The swift change to online learning in order to reduce COVID-19 transmission has paralysed Indonesia’s education system. Online learning poses an immense challenge to children from poor families who have limited access to technology or the internet.

The pandemic has also triggered mass unemployment and a reduction in job opportunities. As Indonesia plunges into recession, those hovering above the poverty line are at risk of exploitation as many are willing to do anything for money.

Under the most recent projection, COVID-19 could push between 1.3 million to 8.5 million Indonesian people into poverty, significantly affecting females.

The pandemic has limited the capacity of governments and NGOs to provide support to victims and police the activity of traffickers. – Center for Health and Security

The lockdown has brought out authoritarian tendencies in countries. Australia in particular does not even seem like a free society. Australian police have been seen arresting people walking alone outside. Australia’s lockdown has zero to do with even how corona is known to spread. 

A Debate Over a Meritless Lockdown Policy

Since the lockdowns began, there has been a strident debate between pro-lockdown proponents and anti-lockdown proponents, which has broken down along political lines.

  1. Pro Lockdown: The argument used by pro-lockdown proponents has been that the lockdowns are worth it for public safety.
  2. Anti Lockdown: The argument from anti-lockdown proponents has been that while the lockdowns will increase safety, they are not worth the loss of freedom and state encroachment onto the public.

What neither side knew is that there is no evidence in the scientific literature that lockdowns work. The scientific consensus is that societies should be kept as near as normal as possible to minimize disruptions. Therefore the debate up to this point about lockdowns has been about as constructive as debating whether one should increase the admission prices at amusement parks  — as with lockdowns increasing the admission prices to access amusement parks also has nothing to do with public safety during pandemics. This further means that the entirety of the lockdowns and debates about lockdown has been counterproductive to dealing with the coronavirus.

When lockdown proponents make their arguments, they are aware of the scientific literature on the topic and leave out the negative consequences of lockdowns.

The following quote is just one example of these adverse follow-on effects.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a rapid and significant increase in the prevalence and severity of modern slavery in Indonesia. Thousands of additional Indonesian woman and girls have been plunged into modern slavery, while current victims’ experiences have become more severe.

The pandemic has triggered a socio-economic crisis , as rising unemployment, limited government social security, and external support have forced many Indonesians to partake in exploitative employment to survive. – Australian Institute of International Affairs

This is just one example; there are many others, including rising obesity, lowered mental health, lower cognitive development (children kept from school), the list goes on and on. And all of these items and all the other negatives come with no corresponding benefit of reducing the impact of the coronavirus.

The Test Case of Texas

Those areas that have reversed their lockdowns or never locked down have received powerful condemnation. An excellent example of this is Texas.

The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation. On the other hand, the lockdowns destroyed industries, schools, churches, liberties and lives, demoralizing the population and robbing people of essential rights. All in the name of safety from a virus that did its work in any case.  – AEIR

Here is the mentioned comparison chart.

If the data does not support lockdown, why has this not been brought to light by any establishment media entity? 

In this video, Dr. Robert Malone explains the high cost and inefficient US response to corona and Dr. Fauci’s problematic centralized role and the pharmaceutical industry in setting public health policy. 

I was asked a good question: Why would the US government lockdown the economy if it is so costly. This video above may hint at the answer. That pharmaceutical companies are setting the response to corona for their profits. Pharma companies do not care about the costs to the US of lockdowns as long as their profits increase.

RAND and USC on the Impact of Lockdowns

RAND and USC performed a study into the impact of the lockdowns. Some of the critical observations from this study are as follows.

In this paper, we examine the impacts of SIP policies, both internationally at the country level and in the U.S. at the state-level on excess mortality.

The Importance of Looking Not Just At Covid Deaths, but Overall Deaths

The RAND/USC study continues.

..even if SIP policies reduce COVID-19 transmission, their impact on overall health is unclear, as SIP policies likely have several important unintended consequences
(Correia, Luck, and Verner 2020). SIP policies might lead to unemployment or reduced economic activity (S. Chen et al. 2020). SIP policies may increase stress and anxiety due to social isolation (Xie et al. 2020; Patrick et al. 2020), potentially leading to increased substance use and suicides (Mason et al. 2021; Holland et al. 2021).

The Reduced Access to Health Services

The RAND/USC study continues.

Recent work also suggests that SIP policies reduced use of high value nonCOVID care such as cancer screenings and vaccinations (Cantor et al. 2020; Whaley et al. 2020; McBain et al. 2021). These complex effects suggest that SIP policies might reduce COVID-19
related mortality, but might also increase mortality from other causes.

If one recalls, the focus was on not using the health care system to deal with covid cases. This policy was ineffective because most of the medical systems (like putting people on ventilators) did not work. Therefore, while hospitals consumed their resources providing ineffective treatments, maintenance medicine was postponed. There are several drugs and even vitamins, each of whose effectiveness is documented in studies at the website However, because most of these items were not on patent, they were rejected by the pharmaceutical-controlled medical establishment. And people that used them were pilloried as “Trump supporters,” “anti-science,” “conspiracy theorists,” or even “white supremacists” by the establishment (and pharma controlled) media.

This graphic was repeatedly used to promote the lockdown, and it was based on not overstressing the health care system. However, this implies that hospitals had effective treatments for patients when they did not.

The Importance of Looking Across Countries and States

There were variances in policies between countries and even between US states. By measuring the outcome in these different data points, one can tease out whether lockdown effectively reduces overall mortality.

The RAND/USC study continues.

Further, no studies have compared the impact of SIP policies between countries and compared these impacts within U.S. states.
To do so, we use data from 43 countries that implemented SIP policies and all 50 U.S. states. We estimate the effect of SIP policies using an event study approach.

In both settings, we fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.

This is precisely why the scientific literature concluded long ago that lockdowns are not effective responses to viruses. We now have generalized scientific literature support before the coronavirus pandemic, which advised not to lockdown, and now this study that found no mortality benefit from locking down.

Lockdowns Were Completely Ineffective

The following quotation provides a multi study analysis on the effectiveness of lockdowns.

Let’s get to the most important thing which the authors seem to have tried to hide because they make so little mention of it lockdowns and COVID deaths. The authors found no correlation whatsoever between the severity of lockdown and the number of COVID deaths and they didn’t find any correlations between border closures and COVID deaths. And there was no correlation between mass testing and COVID deaths either, for that matter, basically nothing that various world governments have done to combat COVID seems to have had any effect whatsoever on the number of deaths. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

Yes, and this fact has not yet reached the public. Some portion of the populations of the world will learn that all the sacrifices they made during the lockdowns did absolutely nothing, and reduced their health.

The Incredible Fact of the Ineffectiveness of Lockdowns

First of all, lockdown does not seem to reduce the number of COVID deaths. As I mentioned, the data is observational. If they have any effect of all it’s too weak to be noticeable At a population level as mentioned. This study only gathered data from 50 countries and only really followed them for the first two months of lockdown, so lots of useful data is missing. Luckily a second study that dealt with these weaknesses was published in frontiers and public health in November, and the author’s received no specific funding for the study reported no conflict of interest.

Results of the Studies

So what can we conclude from these two studies? First lockdowns appear to be completely ineffective. Second, there is a strong link between obesity and the risk of dying from COVID. We can say that obesity in itself increases risk of dying people who are obese have so many different biological systems malfunctioning at the same time that it’s impossible to say whether obesity is a cause of increased risk of death, or just a marker of poor health in general. Regardless, obesity is the strongest COVID risk factor that we can do something about. And even if it isn’t, the obesity itself that kills people. Then we fix the when we fix the obesity, we also fix the many derangements in metabolism and immune function that go along with it. So it is reasonable to think that efforts to decrease the rate of obesity in the population would decrease the number of people dying from COVID. That is where we should be putting our efforts as a society right now making people healthier so that their bodies are a To fight off COVID and cancer and heart disease and dementia and all the other things that preferentially kill people with sub optimal health and life of all this it seems even more bizarre that governments are telling people to stay home and avoid contact with other people. people avoid partaking in And not visit gyms or swimming pools. It seems that the actions of Most governments In our government in Sweden, our design To maximize the number of calls The deaths rather than minimize them.

There was a cohort study that was published in the New England Journal of metal December 202o perspective cohort study is a study. Which a group of people are recruited and then followed over time to see what happens to them. This is better than a retrospective study because there was no way of looking at the end result. Before you begin, and thereby less scope for cheating, it’s not as Good as a randomized control trial Because you’re not in control of all the variables. You don’t have a control group, but it’s a big step up. From just looking at national statistics and Trying to draw a conclusion from them. The study was funded by the US Defense health agency, and DARPA and the purpose of the study was to see if quarantine rules have been implemented in the US Marine Corps were effective for preventing the spread of covid.

This aspect that is interest is that infection only happened within platoons, not between them. This is in spite of the fact that different platoons were using the same spaces only different times. To me this suggests that Covid doesn’t hang around in the air and maintain the ability to infect people who come into the same space at a later point. Rather, it seems From this study that COVID-19 only spreads through close intimate personal contact – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

Making An Overweight Population More Overweight With Lockdowns

A major effect of the lockdown on health has been to increase the level of obesity in all countries where lockdowns were implemented. This decreases the health of the population more than the risk of covid. This increase in obesity is explained in the following quotation.

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that children, like adults, have been gaining weight during the pandemic. The study separated children into three cohorts, ages 5-11, 12-15, and 16-17, and found that the percentage of children who were overweight or obese had increased in every cohort. The increase was greatest among the 5-11 cohort, with an 8.7 percent absolute increase from 36.2 percent before the pandemic to 45.7 percent when the study was conducted. For the 12-15 and 16-17 cohorts, the absolute increase was found to be 5.2 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively. The authors noted that “Most of the increase among youths aged 5 through 11 years and 12 through 15 years was due to an increase in obesity”According to the authors, “Across all measures, we found cognitive scores were significantly reduced during the pandemic by 27 to 37 points (or almost two full standard deviations)” for children born during the pandemic.

The authors note that much more research is needed, but hazard some potential explanations, noting that “masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socioemotional processing.”

On the other hand, it would not be surprising to learn that the widespread use of masks would be having a negative effect on infant development of some kind. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

Fighting Against Intuition That Lockdowns Must Work

Lockdowns make sense to most people. I opposed the lockdowns, particularly when they began to take on a long-term character after promised to end the pandemic in just a few weeks. However, before doing the research, I would not have disputed that they reduced transmission and mortality. However, that was my intuition, but at that time, I never looked into the studies. And scientific studies can often prove intuition to be flawed. One of the primary reasons the intuition on lockdowns is incorrect is that the issue is multifactor. That is, the totality of mortality must be evaluated, not just the mortality from the virus. That was the oversimplification of the lockdown argument. Of all the articles I have written, I have received some of the most pushback on this article. And I think the reason is that it is very difficult to fight against the natural intuition that lockdowns fight against the spread of viruses. And they do, but that is not the actual research question. One must include total mortality, not merely mortality due to the coronavirus.

The RAND/USC study explains this point in the following quote.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented social distancing and SIP policies. These policies are designed to slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting physical interaction. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021).

Finally, this study only looks at the trade-off in mortality. However, while lockdowns lose even in this trade-off analysis (more mortality with lockdowns than without), this is also not a comprehensive analysis. There are economic costs to lockdown, political costs — as it emboldens the natural authoritarian tendencies in governments to push for more social control in other areas. Lockdowns have negative psychological impacts on the population. Obesity levels have greatly increased due to the lockdown. Once weight is gained, it is much more difficult to get off. There are many negative health consequences from the lockdowns that have not been comprehensively analyzed. The list of negative implications of lockdowns would also have to be included in order to perform a proper trade-off analysis.

Are Media Entities Interested in Presenting “The Science” to Their Readers

Throughout the pandemic the establishment media has talked about how important it is to follow “the science.” Well, the scientific literature was available to read and communicate prior to the lockdowns, but that was not done. Now we have this RAND/USC study. It was published in June of 2021. It is now the end of September 2021 as I write this. If we say the study was published in the middle of June, that is 3.5 months ago. And yet, there has not been mainstream media coverage of this study. Why not? It seems quite relevant. Could it be that “following the science” means using data points that fit with one’s preconceived notions and incentives?

The Modeling of The Impact of Lockdowns?

Most of the studies that have found improvements due to lockdowns have been computer models. One published in Nature in October of 2021 I have included quotes from below.

We estimate the effectiveness of 17 NPIs in Europe’s second wave from subnational case and death data by introducing a flexible hierarchical Bayesian transmission model and collecting the largest dataset of NPI implementation dates across Europe. Business closures, educational institution closures, and gathering bans reduced transmission, but reduced it less than they did in the first wave. This difference is likely due to organisational safety measures and individual protective behaviours—such as distancing—which made various areas of public life safer and thereby reduced the effect of closing them.

To deal with the challenges of the second wave, we develop a semi-mechanistic hierarchical Bayesian model that is more widely applicable than previous models

This suggests that high-level policy conclusions can be drawn from the results, as they depend on modelling assumptions only to a limited degree.

The model was implemented in NumPyro (version 0.6.0)63. The model components in all previous equations are combined into a single likelihood function and a set of prior distributions.

The model was implemented in NumPyro (version 0.6.0)63. The model components in all previous equations are combined into a single likelihood function and a set of prior distributions. These ingredients are needed to infer a posterior over the unobserved variables in our model using the No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS)64, a standard Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm, as implemented in NumPyro.

I had a hard time making heads or tails of this report, and I don’t think many people will be able to read it. But it is an example of a report that proposes a benefit from lockdowns.

Furthermore, computer models are normally required when there is no data. That is they are created before the event.

I don’t understand why after the lockdowns have been in effect, that we are still using computer models. However, it turns out computer models have repeatedly spit out highly inaccurate forecasts on covid deaths. And two of the most prominent ones were not only entirely inaccurate, but they were produced by researchers with no history of accuracy in pandemic predictions, and they were both funded by Bill Gates, who had major investments in companies that would benefit from a pandemic as I cover in the article How Bill Gates Funded Science Fraud in the Imperial College Covid Forecast Model.

What Was The Decision to Lockdown Was Based On?

Often times is presumed that there was substantial analysis performed by governments that decided to lockdown. I thought this myself when the lockdowns first went into effect. However, it turns out there is a very interesting backstory as to why lockdowns were implemented, and it also relates to the computer model article that I just critiqued above.

This story, which is generally unknown, is covered in the following quotation.

You would think that governments always do a cost benefit analysis before embarking on a certain course of action, especially if it is likely that likely to have significant effects on many different aspects of society. The global lockdowns in response to the COVID pandemic probably constitute the largest and most extreme measures taken by Western governments since World War Two. So do you think you you would think that a careful cost benefit analysis would have been done before the decision was made to lock down apparently if you thought that you would be wrong as far as I’m aware, not a single government anywhere has presented a careful deliberate cost benefit analysis in which they looked at all aspects and then explain why they think lockdown is the right decision in spite of all the likely harm. As I mentioned earlier in the book, hospital admissions due to heart attacks and Stockholm were down 40% during the first wave of COVID in the spring of 2020. Presumably, the number of people having heart attacks didn’t decrease by 40%. So most likely, a lot of people were having heart attacks but choosing to stay home For fear of catching COVID It seems like it seems similar patterns have been seen around the world. This is a problem for two reasons. First, the risk of sudden cardiac death. Immediately after a heart attack is much bigger if you don’t get emergency treatment schools across the US were shut down for a median of 54 days during the first COVID wave based on their model and the author’s estimate that this 54 day hiatus will result in infected boys and living for months shorter lives on average than they would otherwise would have and affected girls living two and a half months shorter lives than they otherwise would have. An article was published in the British Medical Journal in July written by a group of doctors working at the Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London. The authors noted that the incidence of abusive head trauma and children arriving at their hospital had increased by 15 100% in the first month of a lockdown, when compared with the same period in the preceding years. In other words, there was a 15 fold increase in children getting beaten so badly by their caregivers, that they ended up in the hospital with severe head trauma.

The decision to lockdown was largely made based upon the apparent success of the lockdown that China instituted in Wuhan early in the course of the pandemic and on modeling done by statisticians and Imperial College in London, which suggested that half a million people in the UK would die without a severe lockdown. It’s important to understand here that modeling is not scientific evidence. A model is basically an equation that you invent, you feed the equation with all the variables that you think matter and then you see what the equation spits out. So the model will generally produce a result that you the creator want it to since you’re the one deciding which assumptions will be built into the model and you’re the one deciding which variables will be fed into the model. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

Why Lockdowns Were Undertaken

In this book, I’m shocked to demonstrate that COVID-19 is nowhere near as bad as it has been portrayed in the mainstream media. I’ve written about how the mortality rate is below point 2%, meaning that for most people the risk of dying if you get infected is less than one in 500, and less than one in 3000 If you’re below 70 years of age. I’ve also written about how the disease preference preferentially strikes people who are anyway very close to the end of life. I pointed out that 98% of the people will get COVID are fully recovered within three months and that there’s no good evidence that COVID results in long term health consequences. I’ve also pointed out that the measures taken to fight COVID such as the huge fear campaigns and school closures will result in the far more years of life loss then will be lost to the virus directly. Given that this is all the case, what is going on? Lockdowns were in many cases more severe the second time around than the first time even though we, by then knew so much more than we did in the spring of 2020.

I have a hypothesis that is really just my personal attempt to make sense of the situation which I’m going to share with you. If you have an alternative hypothesis, please feel free to contact me.

As everyone knows, COVID started in China. And China is a totalitarian dictatorship that has a long history of strict control of its media messaging and a well developed propaganda machine. I think the Chinese realized early on that COVID was no worse than a bad flu. That’s probably why their initial response was to try to suppress public discussion of it as dictatorships often do and just let it blow over. But it soon became clear that was going to be impossible with stories spreading rapidly on social media, in spite of their early attempts at censorship so instead they change tact and decided to stage a big Hollywood show straight out of a movie.

Therefore, in January and February, the world was treated to carefully choreographed images of lockdown and we saw the entrances to apartment complexes being welded shut people in hazmat suits fumigating buildings, citizens lying dead in the streets and fleets of vehicles spraying disinfectant over everything. Most likely this was merely intended to be a local show of strength, to show the Chinese people how decisively and strongly the Chinese state would react to a new threat. China claimed to have defeated COVID completely a little over a month. On February, 11 to 2020 China reported 6900 cases. A month later they were supposedly only 15 cases in all of China. At present, when the rest of the world is dealing with a second wave China is still reporting less than 100 cases per day. They are also claiming less than 5000 people have so far died from COVID in China. That’s less than Sweden a country with less than 1% of China’s population.

For some reason, even though we know China is a dictatorship with a well developed propaganda machine. We are trusting their numbers and their information we’re trusting the China’s temporary lockdown in Wuhan was “so successful” that the disease was stamped out completely in the country, and still has barely shown any signs of return. Clearly this is impossible as I’ve written about earlier in the book The evidence shows that lockdowns are ineffective, and by the time Wuhan went into lockdown in February. The virus had already been circulating in China for months, and must have been widely spread throughout the country, locking down one city in a situation where the virus is already widespread in the country was really a meaningless action purely done for the purposes of propaganda.

And what was the result, global media went into overdrive spreading the Chinese images across the world. When case started to appear in other countries, everyone was already primed to see this as a deadly pandemic demands were made in both the established media and the social media that governments take action, similar to China’s since China’s actions have been shown, quote unquote, to be effective democratic governments afraid of losing voters complied voters seeing increasingly draconian measures being taken by governments felt this was justified. This justified your fear and became ever more afraid and ever more demanding a positive feedback loop was created, the rest is history.

100 years from now historians will not be talking about COVID as an example of a deadly pandemic, they will be talking about it as an example of how easy it is to induce a state of collective mass hysteria, given that this is the case, how long will the President hysteria continue.

I think most governments have dug themselves into a hole in relation to COVID they portrayed it as far more deadly and dangerous than it is. They know this, but to admit the era now is inconceivable. Partly this is because lockdown has resulted in so much suffering, that would be suicidal to say that it was all for nothing, partly it is because the mass media and general public are now so convinced of the seriousness of the disease than any government that argued the contrary would be labeled as being irresponsible and debt and deranged. So the only way out of the hole is with a magic bullet and that magic bullet is a vaccine. It doesn’t matter whether the vaccine has any effect whatsoever on overall mortality or whether it protects the old and the infirm, who are most at most risk for severe disease, or prevent spread of infection. The only thing that matters is getting out of the hole as quickly as possible without admitting ever having done anything wrong. That is why governments have already started mass vaccination campaigns based on very limited data. Once enough people have been vaccinated governments can state that the crisis has been ended the heads of state will be lauded as heroes and we can go back to our lives. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

This is an amazing quote, and the logic is very difficult to dispute. There has to be a reason why world governments ignored all of the pre-existing studies on the ineffectiveness of lockdowns versus viruses. It also illustrates the danger of accepting methods and information out of countries like China, where the government controls all of the information in that society.

Norway’s View on Locking Down Being a Mistake

As time passes, it will be increasingly difficult to propose that the lockdowns made countries safer. This has been acknowledged by Norway in May of 2020, however, the following has not been acknowledged or reported by the establishment media.

Yet, in Norway, their health chief now says that maybe a lockdown wasn’t necessary at all—that the rate of infection was not accurately gauged. In all, she declared that Norway could have handled the infection without a quarantine.

“The scientific backing was not good enough,” Stoltenberg said of the decision to close down schools and kindergartens, a policy her agency had not recommend even at the time it was instituted in March.

Domestic Violence and Lockdowns

Domestic violence was greatly increased during the lockdowns, and this occurred in nearly every country that engaged in lockdowns.

Domestic violence goes up whenever families spend more time together, such as the Christmas and summer vacations, she said.

Now, with families in lockdown worldwide, hotlines are lighting up with abuse reports, leaving governments trying to address a crisis that experts say they should have seen coming.

But governments largely failed to prepare for the way the new public health measures would create opportunities for abusers to terrorize their victims. Now, many are scrambling to offer services to those at risk.

We’ve been getting some very distressing calls, showing us clearly just how intense psychological as well as physical mistreatment can get when people are kept 24 hours a day together within a reduced space,” said Ana Bella, who set up a foundation to help other women after surviving domestic violence herself. – New York Times

A Massive Medical and Health Policy Blunder Based on Financially Biased Forecasts

The lockdowns were based upon several important cognititive failures.

  1. Ignoring the scientific literature on the effect of lockdowns on virus pandemics.
  2. Reliance on highly inaccurate death rate and hospital usage models. These models were funded by the WHO and Bill Gates. It now appears that Bill Gates had a plan for years to profit from a pandemic that he would fund false science to exaggerate.
  3. A reliance on China, which has no history of being a thought leader in dealing with public health and is not a free society regarding lockdowns.
  4. The CDC forcing hospitals to categorize non-covid deaths as covid deaths, and the lack of general awareness of this re-categorization, leading to a massive overestimate of covid deaths.
  5. Inaccurate and deliberately exaggerated PCR covid tests, which exaggerated the number of covid cases, which is again greatly due to the CDC.

This response should be viewed as one of the great health policy blunders, and this is explained in the following quotation.

In the face of a novel virus threat, China clamped down on its citizens. Academics used faulty information to build faulty models. Leaders relied on these faulty models. Dissenting views were suppressed. The media flamed fears and the world panicked. China concealed the extent of the viral outbreak, which, if you believed its data, led many scientists to believe that 2% to 5% of all infected patients would die. This turned out to be off by a factor of 10, but academic epidemiologists have a history of wildly-off-the-mark doomsday predictions.

That is the story of what may eventually be known as one of the biggest medical and economic blunders of all time. The collective failure of every Western nation, except one, to question groupthink will surely be studied by economists, doctors, and psychologists for decades to come.

Besides deaths, there were also doomsday projections about hospital capacity, but those models also proved to be grotesquely exaggerated. On March 29, Columbia University projected a need for 136,000 hospital beds in New York City. The maximum ever used was under 12,000. At peak, New York City still had around 1 in 6 hospital beds open and around 1 in 10 ICU beds open.

A much more rational strategy would have been to lock down nursing homes and let young healthy people out to build immunity. Instead we did the opposite, we forced nursing homes to take COVID-19 patients and locked down young people. – Herald

Every major forecast used to drive policy was wildly inaccurate, and consistently inaccurate in the direction of overestimating the effect of covid. When forecasts are consistently biased, that is either too high or too low, one typically looks for a reason for this bias.

Self Censorship of Knowledgeable Critics of Lockdowns

Certainly many people knowledgeable of the scientific literature, and even those that published the scientific literature knew the lockdowns were counterproductive to public health. So why did not more of these people speak up? This is partially explained in the following quotation.

Stefan Löfven, Sweden’s centre-left premier, has dismissed calls for a lockdown, saying ‘we can’t legislate and ban everything’. He’s no evangelist for libertarian principles, and may yet bring in harder measures. But so far he’s been saying that ‘we all, as individuals, have to take responsibility’ and not just wait for the government to lock us up.

It’s the first time in my adult life when it is possible to imagine totalitarianism in the West. Equally frightening is the strength of the panic-ridden ‘totalitarian outlook’. There is growing intolerance of dissent; and — as Orwell wrote in ‘The Prevention of Literature’ — people censure themselves because of ‘the dangerous proposition… that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’.

There are many experts in epidemiology and virology who are highly critical of the lockdown strategy. Few are willing to talk on record. There are public health experts arguing that suppression methods will kill more people than the virus. But they struggle to speak plainly, mostly out of fear of the social media mob. Many economists think it is mad to close down entire national production. But they tiptoe around their message because such opinions are threatening the mood of national cohesion. – The Spectator

Interesting Comments on the Necessity of Lockdowns from the Telegraph

Comment #1: Cases Not Spiking in Unrestricted Texas

Texas dropped all restrictions on March the 12th. Don’t assume that cases are going to spike whatever that’s means. It seems to be a favorite word of the media. Cases have not spiked. Fort Worth is in Tarrant county with the population of about 2.1 million and part of the Dallas Fort Worth metropolitan area with the population of 7.5 million. Yesterday we had 58 cases in Tarrant county over the last month the number of daily cases is averaged around 100. Things are pretty much back to normal. A few people wear masks as their choice, the vast majority do not. We completed our vaccinations or jobs as you say on January 25th. We went to London in mid-April and returned here the end of May.

Comment #2: Lack of UK Leadership

Johnson is spineless and should have stayed on the back benches if this is his idea of leadership. I thought his hero was Churchill? On his showing so far, Johnson would have sent the small boats to Dunkirk not to bring our boys home but to help Hitler invade. Ok, maybe that’s a bit strong but I think in context we’re allowed rhetorical flourishes as the Johnson was prone to them in earlier days before he sold out or revealed his true colours depending on your preference.

Unless we are released soon, Brexit and everything this nation stood for will have been in vain and an irreversible decline will have set in. If it hasn’t already.

Comment #3: Lack of Testing on Vaccines

Supposedly the spike proteins are cytotoxic – the inventor of the MRNA vaccines is interviewed by a professor of biology in this episode, he states that the approach he pioneered has been altered. Millions of people have taken something that no one knows AT ALL what the long term effects will be, all for a weak virus that predominantly preyed on the very elderly or the infirm – and it’s the unvaccinated who are at fault? Yeah… Your cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

Comment #4: Addicted to Power

These lockdowns are a manifestation of this Tory government’s addiction to power and is an attempt to embed and entrench their position of power in order to maintain a one party state for the forseeable future. Now that they have won power they will not let go of it lightly or without a fight.

Comment #5: Experimental Vaccine

As someone who works in both healthcare and virology I have no intention of allowing my 12 and 14 year old kids to be vaccinated with a vaccine that is, to all intense purposes, experimental. There are reasons why it takes between 5 and 6 years to get vaccines on the market, it takes that long to settle the long term risks of taking the vaccine – all vaccines have an element of risk, It is one thing for a 50 something male with underlying health conditions to take the vaccine – quite another for a child.

Comment #6: Spike Protein is Toxic

The mRNA gene therapy jab is designed to make your body manufacture part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the spike protein or at least something analogous to it. But the spike protein has the same toxic properties as the virus itself. Testing has now shown that following inoculation with the synthetic mRNA the spike protein doesn’t remain in the muscle (where the injection was), and where it was supposed to be initiating antibodies, but can get into the bloodstream. In the bloodstream it is toxic and can damage the lining of blood vessels throughout the body (plus the heart and lungs) just as the virus does. But additionally it can cause platelets to clump giving rise directly to blood clotting. How it was ever assumed that the spike protein would remain in the deltoid muscle is a mystery, but apparently that was the theory.

This question has been brought up repeatedly. Why would anyone think the vaccine would only stay in the deltoid?

Comment #7: Saving the NHS?

The NHS cannot now be ‘saved’. By trying to prevent it from being overwhelmed by covid, it has now become overwhelmed by every other ailment you could name. Our politicians are so blinkered by trying to prevent covid hospitalisations that they are driving it further into the ground. This singular obsession must cease.

Comment #8: Doing More Harm Than Good?

Since last May public health has effectively become Covid health in the process doing far more harm than good, how did Covid become the ‘only’ issue without regards to, well, the overall public health for all.

Comment #9: Number of People Admitted to Hospitals

More than 42,000 people are normally admitted to hospital on a daily basis. Today – 187 people admitted because of Covid.

1,089 Covid patients currently in hospital – that’s less than 1 per hospital if averaged out over the UK.

1,500 people normally die every day in the UK. Today – 8 people die within 28 days of a positive test – not even necessarily of Covid.

Comment #10: Masks?

Masks, apart from part of a PPE regime, do not stop viruses or much else (check the literature). Joe Public spluttering runny nosed behind his mask, removing it to blow his nose, replacing it, covered in microbes, which he transfers to his hands, washes hands, fingers mask again….? Far better to blow nose, discard tissue, wash hands, full stop, and repeat whenever necessary. Much more hygienic. Michie, if she has done basic research, and understands anything of medical matters at all, must know all this.

Regarding your point of government saying some will die of Covid when we open up, yes possibly an additional few, but that can be weighed against the thousands more who are dying from late cancer diagnoses, neglected chronic illness, suicide from despair at lost jobs, lost life opportunities, loneliness and overwhelming depression, and that’s just a sample, without considering the long term morbidity and mortality of the many other harms of lockdown.  Which side of that scale weighs heavier?

Comment #10: Where Are the Arguments Against the Lockdowns?

@P Jackson I’m not convinced there is a baying mob in favour of lockdowns. It seems to boil down to the ‘closed’ aspect of reporting, where only pro lockdown stances are given exposure. I’ve met no one outside of a secure public sector job who is actually in favour. As @TimStanley says, without some brave politicians sticking their necks above the parapet, we are in danger of ending up in permanent lockdowns by dint of inertia.

Comment #11: Puny Real Death Levels

Deaths extremely low compared to this time last year, evidence that vaccines are very effective. Hospitalisations only up slightly. NHS own admission stats show that most local authority areas show that the average admission rate is ZERO! Hardly a case for NHS being overwhelmed! Flu now more deadly than Covid according to ONS stats. Yet here we are YET AGAIN with the view that the low risk Covid is the only health concern that matters.

Comment #12: Lockdowns Work?

The media is also failing to investigate the assumption that lockdowns “work”. Whatever SAGE says, we now have multiple, peer-reviewed papers from top universities (Harvard, Stanford erc) that all show no link between lockdown severity and covid death rates when studying real world data. This seems counter intuitive to many, but it’s true, and there are now many scientists working on, and writing about, why this is the case.

Comment #13: Posing the Correct Question

If I pose the question, “Would you prefer to kill your neighbour, parents and all the children on your block or continue lockdown for 4 more weeks? ” What do you suppose the results would be?

Or, if I pose the question, ” Lockdowns have cost the global economy, $20 Trillion and rising, child slavery has increased, in the third world 50 million more people have pushed to the brink of starvation, we have done permanent damage to every child and millions of university students world wide, cancer treatment and other serious medical treatments now have a 2 year backlog and more than 100,000 small business owners will now have no pension or savings for retirement; should we prolong the agony and increase the costs for another 4 weeks? ” What do you suppose the results will be to this question?

Update As of November 2021

This video provides a retrospective on the lockdowns.


  • World governments have claimed their populations that lockdowns are effective in reducing mortality.
  • This claim is false.
  • This is not “hindsight.” This claim was entirely inconsistent with the scientific consensus before the lockdown policy was decided, and now the RAND/USC study and the other studies mentioned in this article only reinforces what was known before the coronavirus pandemic broke.

It also means that all debates about whether or not to lockdown have been pointless based upon the assumptions that there is some effectiveness to lockdowns.

Video on Orwellian Corona Lockdowns