{"id":208364,"date":"2020-06-06T06:18:18","date_gmt":"2020-06-06T06:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=208364"},"modified":"2020-06-10T05:41:56","modified_gmt":"2020-06-10T05:41:56","slug":"lockdown-lunacy-the-thinking-persons-guide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=208364","title":{"rendered":"LOCKDOWN LUNACY: The Thinking Person\u2019s Guide"},"content":{"rendered":"

J.B. Handley \u2013 Children\u2019s Health Defence June 4, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

For anyone willing to look, there are so many facts that tell the true story, and it goes something like this:<\/h5>\n
Knowing what we know today about COVID-19\u2019s Infection Fatality Rate, asymmetric impact by age and medical condition, non-transmissibility by asymptomatic people and in outdoor settings, near-zero fatality rate for children, and the basic understanding of viruses through Farr\u2019s law, locking down society was a bone-headed policy decision so devastating to society that historians may judge it as the all-time worst decision ever made. Worse, as these clear facts have become available, many policy-makers haven\u2019t shifted their positions, despite the fact that every hour under any stage of lockdown has a domino-effect of devastation to society. Meanwhile, the media\u2014with a few notable exceptions\u2014is oddly silent on all the good news. Luckily, an unexpected group of heroes across the political landscape\u2014many of them doctors and scientists\u2014have emerged to tell the truth, despite facing extreme criticism and censorship from an angry mob desperate to continue fighting an imaginary war.<\/em><\/h5>\n
My goal is to engage in known facts. You, the reader, can decide if all of these facts, when you put them together, equate to the story above.<\/h5>\n

Fact #1: The Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, in line with seasonal flu<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Infection Fatality Rate math of ANY new virus ALWAYS declines over time as more data becomes available, as any virologist could tell you. In the early days of COVID-19 where we only had data from China, there was a fear that the IFR could be as high as 3.4%, which would indeed be cataclysmic. On April 17th, the first study was published from Stanford researchers<\/a><\/span> that should have ended all lockdowns immediately, as the scientists reported that their research \u201cimplies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases\u201d and pegged the IFR between 0.12-0.2%. The researchers also speculated that the final IFR, as more data emerged, would likely \u201cbe lower.\u201d For context, seasonal flu has an IFR of 0.1%. Smallpox? 30%.<\/h5>\n
As the first study to peg the IFR, the Stanford study came under withering criticism, prompting the lead researcher, Dr. John Ioannidis to note,<\/h5>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s some sort of mob mentality here operating that they just insist that this has to be the end of the world, and it has to be that the sky is falling. It\u2019s attacking studies with data based on speculation and science fiction. But dismissing real data in favor of mathematical speculation is mind-boggling.\u201d<\/h5>\n
Like all good science, the Stanford data on IFR has now been replicated so many times that our own Centers for Disease Control came out this week to announce that their \u2018best estimate\u2019 showed an IFR below 0.3%<\/strong>. In this article on the CDC\u2019s new data<\/a><\/span>, they also highlighted how the cascading declines in IFR has removed all the fears of doomsday:<\/h5>\n
That \u201cbest estimate\u201d scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which\u00a0<\/span><\/em>predicted<\/em><\/a><\/span>\u00a0that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a\u00a0<\/span><\/em>worst-case scenario<\/em><\/a><\/span>\u00a0in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.<\/em><\/h5>\n
If you\u2019re still unconvinced that the IFR of COVID-19 is roughly in line with a bad flu season, the most comprehensive analysis I have seen comes from Oxford University<\/a><\/span>, who recently stated:<\/h5>\n
\u201cTaking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.\u201d<\/em><\/h5>\n
Finally, just last week, Stanford\u2019s Dr. Ioannidis published a meta-analysis<\/span><\/a> (because so many IFR studies have been done around the world in April and early May) where he analyzed TWELVE separate IFR studies and his conclusion is so good, I\u2019ll just leave you with it:<\/h5>\n
The infection fatality rate (IFR), the probability of dying for a person who is infected, is one of the most critical and most contested features of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The expected total mortality burden of COVID-19 is directly related to the IFR. Moreover, justification for various non-pharmacological public health interventions depends crucially on the IFR. Some aggressive interventions that potentially induce also more pronounced collateral harms1\u00a0may be considered appropriate, if IFR is high. Conversely, the same measures may fall short of acceptable risk-benefit thresholds, if the IFR is low\u2026Interestingly, despite their differences in design, execution, and analysis, most studies provide IFR point estimates that are within a relatively narrow range. Seven of the 12 inferred IFRs are in the range <\/em>0.07 to 0.20<\/em><\/strong> (corrected IFR of 0.06 to 0.16) which are similar to IFR values of seasonal influenza. Three values are modestly higher (corrected IFR of 0.25-0.40 in Gangelt, Geneva, and Wuhan) and two are modestly lower than this range (corrected IFR of 0.02-0.03 in Kobe and Oise).<\/em><\/h5>\n

Opinion #1: Dr. Scott Atlas<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Soon after the Stanford study released its data (he wasn\u2019t a study author), Stanford\u2019s Dr. Scott Atlas (pictured) published an opinion piece in The Hill<\/em> newspaper with the title, \u201cThe data is in \u2014 stop the panic and end the total isolation<\/span>.\u201d<\/a> He wrote:<\/h5>\n
The recent\u00a0Stanford<\/span><\/a>\u00a0University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization\u00a0estimates<\/a><\/span>\u00a0that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies\u2026Let\u2019s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.<\/em><\/h5>\n
Facts do matter, but no one listened. Dr. Atlas\u2019 article also helps frame Fact #2.<\/h5>\n

Fact #2: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is much higher than the average IFR for older people and those with co-morbidities, and much lower than the average IFR for younger healthy people, and nearing zero for children<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Continues \u2026<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fifteen hard facts that entirely refute the official narrative about the Covid-19 \u201cpandemic\u201d <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19,61,105],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Behind_The_News","category-Commentary","category-coronavirus"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=208364"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208364\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":208371,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208364\/revisions\/208371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=208364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=208364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=208364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}