Tuesday, 14 April 2020

Something we need to be clear about concerning the birdemic

The real reason for the global lockdown is that it is part of the successful global totalitarian coup. And if you can't see that - when nothing could possibly be clearer - then I'm afraid that is your problem; and you need to work on it. It is not my job to point-out the blazingly obvious to the self-blinded.

But, we need to be clear that the response to the birdemic was not an "over-reaction" as so many people keep saying. Universal lock-down and universal social-distancing (ULDSD) is not an over reaction, it is the wrong reaction.

More than that - the ULDSD reaction makes the epidemic worse; which is to say that it leads to more deaths from the birdemic, as well as (many) more deaths from other causes of dying (cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disroders, suicides, other infections etc).

In the context of understanding how respiratory disease epidemics are survived - why they have not wiped-out the human species long since, despite the fact they they cannot be 'contained'; and that sooner or later everyone will be exposed until the herd immunity is high-enough that the disease dies-out - you need to comrehend that the mantra of 'flattening the curve' necessarily leads to more deaths due to lengthening the epidemic.

If you don't understand why, then a blog post is insufficient to explain it. However, it has been explained clearly, coherently and accurately by one of those increasingly rare individuals who is both honest and competent - if you can set aside 40 minutes to pay attention:

If you can follow Knut Wittkowski's explanation, you will see that lock-down and social distancing is not an 'over-reaction', nor is the strategy 'useless' - but it is actively harmful.

Which is not in the slightest degree unexpected; considering the real purpose of ULDSC, and the motivation of the entities who are behind it.

Note added: If you try to protect everybody, you will kill the vulnerable (the old, and with other illnesses) - as is happening; because by extending the epidemic (aka flattening the curve) the virus will get to them sooner or later. If you genuinely want to protect the vulnerable - the large majority of not vulnerable (especially children and their parents) need to be exposed to the virus while the minority of vulnerable are protected until the epidemic burns-out due to a high percentage of the exposed becoming immune. This shortens the epidemic. If you are young and healthy and genuinely want to protect the old and unhealthy; your sacrifice is to be exposed to the virus, sooner rather than later, and become immune either through getting an illness or (more often) simply by fighting it off. Sheltering isolated at home, (or behind a mask), is selfishness.


Ingemar said...

I've noticed that the biggest challenge to we who don't accept the mainstream Narrative is that we are chided, criticized and demonized for pointing out the blindingly obvious truth. My parents are 100% all-in the Lie, and when I point out that this whole thing is the mother of all Reichstag Fires I get told that I'm paranoid.

Now I realize why "normal" people couldn't affect any change in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Those regimes managed to grip people's hearts like a narcissist embraces his newest thrall.

There's probably at most one Solzhenitsyn for every million Soviet citizens.

S. F. Griffin said...

To your added note: Yes.

The question I have asked some people is: why would you not want me, a low risk person, to get this thing and get it fast? Why don't we want it to spread through schools and work places filled with low risk people whilst shielding the high risk people?

Over-whelming the NHS was the only argument they had and it was never at all convincing that a general lockdown was the solution to that supposed problem. It has only become less convincing as time has marched forward.

a_probst said...

Before modern medicine this would barely have registered to people as more than 'an ill wind blowing', hardly a plague.

a_probst said...

And Solzhenitsyn didn't give up Marxism and re-embrace the Orthodox faith he was raised in until well into his ordeals, sometime in the 1950s. He also encountered imprisoned loyalists who didn't realize at first that they weren't going home.

Bruce Charlton said...

@a_p - wrt the Black Death. Even in England, where it killed fully half the population in about forty years (i.e. the population went down from 4 million to 2 million - doubling the average peasant's wage and breaking the system of serfdom! - and took 200 years to recover) - contemporary writers such as Chaucer and Langland seem barely to have noticed any difference from what went before, since there are just a few references in their work.