Looks like even Big Pharma's prime conduit has reversed course as the brutal reality of these horrific policies have come to light.
How could we have known right? Wrong- many of us have been saying this for months- and many of you out there have been in full support of these brutal lockdowns and their variants- policies that never saved anyone and conversely killed countless innocents and are continuing to do so.
What we need now are investigations and prosecutions for these grossly irresponsible policies which were based on horrendously inaccurate models done by thoroughly corrupted outfits like The Imperial College and IHME.
All of the media hyenas who told one hysterical lie after the next also need to be on trial.
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” David Nabarro told The Spectator in an interview aired on Oct. 8.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
Nabarro pointed to the collateral damage that lockdowns are having worldwide, especially among poorer populations.
“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world because their markets have got dented. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. Seems that we may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it,” Nabarro said.
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe actually,” he added. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember – lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/who-flip-flops-urges-world-leaders-stop-using-lockdowns-fight-covid-contagion
World Health Organization Appeals to World Leaders: STOP USING LOCKDOWNS- MAKES POOR PEOPLE POORER
Report Thread
-
-
Supporters of lockdowns support this:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-lockdown-school-closures-abuse-vulnerable.html -
"...the spread of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus."
Zero Hedge seems like a reputable source if they use this language. -
I'll ask again even though you never respond: why do you care so much about the poors? Are you one of them?
-
why do you care? wrote:
I'll ask again even though you never respond: why do you care so much about the poors? Are you one of them?
Or he may not want to become one of them due to the repeated lockdowns. -
energeticlotuseater wrote:
why do you care? wrote:
I'll ask again even though you never respond: why do you care so much about the poors? Are you one of them?
Or he may not want to become one of them due to the repeated lockdowns.
If going without a job for a year or two makes you poor, you were already poor before the lockdown started. Those of us who have acted like adults and worked hard to put bread on the table aren't worried.
Anyway, most non-poors have jobs that can be done remotely, so the lockdowns shouldn't really impact those who aren't already members of the lower class. -
why do you care? wrote:
I'll ask again even though you never respond: why do you care so much about the poors? Are you one of them?
Nice troll ? -
Allen53 wrote:
why do you care? wrote:
I'll ask again even though you never respond: why do you care so much about the poors? Are you one of them?
Do you suffer from some mental illness?
Why do you divert attention from the article?
Do you hate poor people?
Hate? No, you have to really care about someone to hate them. Like most people, I'm pretty much indifferent to the poors. -
No serious epidemiologist is advocating for lockdowns you stupid piece of garbage
-
Lots of sped, lamestream media, wokers, and politicians are.
-
Don't worry. It's coming.
Wonder what they have up their sleeves that will make it convincing enough to make a forced injection into you? Covid-19.2?
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/06/28/2022-vaccination-passport-eu-keeps-quiet-over-suspicious-documents/ -
If going without a job for a year or two makes you poor, you were already poor before the lockdown started. Those of us who have acted like adults and worked hard to put bread on the table aren't worried.
Anyway, most non-poors have jobs that can be done remotely, so the lockdowns shouldn't really impact those who aren't already members of the lower class.
I think you’re trolling, but regardless you are an ahole. -
I'm glad to see Allen53 finally endorsing the WHO's advice. Please heed its advice to individuals:
If COVID-19 is spreading in your community, stay safe by taking some simple precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, keeping rooms well ventilated, avoiding crowds, cleaning your hands, and coughing into a bent elbow or tissue. Check local advice where you live and work. Do it all!
See more here:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public
I'm glad Allen53 is also endorsing their Mythbusters page:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters
Stay safe, people. -
We'd all be safer if the owners of this site would delete the OP.
-
The world would be safer and more peaceful if you tyrant enablers would just STFU.
-
Allen53 wrote:
Looks like even Big Pharma's prime conduit has reversed course as the brutal reality of these horrific policies have come to light.
How could we have known right? Wrong- many of us have been saying this for months- and many of you out there have been in full support of these brutal lockdowns and their variants- policies that never saved anyone and conversely killed countless innocents and are continuing to do so.
...
The article says this is a "flip-flop", but has there really been any change?
Haven't the primary recommendations for combatting the spread of the virus always been:
- social distancing, mask wearing, hand-washing, testing, contact tracing, and isolation.
Lockdowns were never a primary recommendation by the WHO or the CDC.
Lockdowns are only recommended in extreme cases as a last resort after governments failed to act in time by implementing guidelines for prevention. And then it is should only be a temporary one-time thing, for a short duration like 4 weeks.
For America, which ignored all of the early warning signs for months, the lockdown made sense in April, in hotspots like New York. Unfortunately, America did not implement lockdown properly, due to ambiguous guidelines from its leaders, and they re-opened too soon, in violation of CDC guidelines, predictably causing the spread to increase again before they ever got it under control.
I see lockdowns comparable to abortions -- it is possible to avoid them completely with the right prevention. The primary recommendation is social distancing (abstinence) and wearing a mask (condom) when you don't social distance. (There is no pill yet for corona virus.) Unfortunately, there always seems to be some conservative group with a short term limited view lobbying for the freedom to infect others (lobbying against condoms and the pill), which counter-productively makes the problem much worse than it should have been. -
Well...rekrunner, then what the heck is going on in Europe right now? It's the return of the "killer" virus and heads of states are going into complete hysteria mode!
Spain had a China-style lockdown back in the spring and flattened the curve. Now 6 months later all hell has broken out and Madrid is in lockdown! Italy, samething - China-style lockdown back in the spring, flattened the curve and now they're in RED alert status as their government is freaking out deciding whether or not to implement another lockdown. Same with France, UK, Slovakia:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-11/u-k-czech-republic-italy-to-toughen-rules-as-cases-surge
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/spain-pm-sanchez-defends-covid-emergency-lockdown-in-madrid
It seems these head of states don't want to just lockdown the elderly/most vulnerable while letting this "coronavirus" run it's course with thecyoung & healthy. Instead, it's constant panic mode and they'll just lock up everybody ruining more lives! ? -
Let's dig deeper into this wrote:
It seems these head of states don't want to just lockdown the elderly/most vulnerable while letting this "coronavirus" run it's course with thecyoung & healthy. Instead, it's constant panic mode and they'll just lock up everybody ruining more lives! ?
Because genius it's not possible to just lockdown the elderly and vulnerable - they usually need the most contact from the young and healthy to help them live. -
Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan
What does the Covid data really tell us?
11 October 2020, 8:00am
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-does-the-covid-data-really-tell-us-
Another week has passed with more restrictions piled on – but as lockdown measures become ever more restrictive, the demand for evidence grows. Sir Keir Starmer, for instance, has asked to see evidence for new lockdown measures. In mid-August, Andy Burnham called on the government not to put Oldham into lockdown as Sir Richard Leese, the lead for health in Greater Manchester, pointed out that there is ‘no evidence’ that additional lockdown measures would improve the chances of halting the virus.
Tomorrow, we’re told, there will be more restrictions still. But on what grounds?
The main evidence presented to us by the government is the new daily total for new Covid infections. But how severe are the cases? Severity can be assessed quantitatively starting from the clearest and unquestionable outcome – death. But even there, the evidence is not clear. Is a ‘Covid death’ someone killed by the virus, or someone who died from other reasons who also had the virus?
Our understanding of ‘Covid deaths’
Evidence from Italy casts new light on this. ISTAT, Italy’s national statistics institute, and Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), an Italian health authority, published a report on the impact of Covid-19 deaths recorded up to the 16 July. They found 28 per cent of death certificates they studied have Covid-19 as the only cause of death. The remainder, over two thirds, are deaths with Covid: i.e. people with preexisting conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Often with more than one condition in the same person. So the figure for ‘Covid deaths’ in this instance will be almost four times as big as the number who died from Covid.
An ONS report of deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales in June paints a similar picture: ‘Of the deaths involving Covid-19 that occurred in England and Wales in March to June 2020, there was at least one pre-existing condition in 91 per cent of cases.’ Unlike Italy, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease was the most common pre-existing condition found among Covid deaths.
A recent update by the ISS shows that 59 per cent of Italy’s 36,000 deaths were amongst the over-80s. In August, the age of those who died with Covid shifted significantly towards the very elderly. In other words, cases are getting younger but deaths over the summer and early autumn are getting older. In traditional pandemic theory, deaths among the young should increase and several studies have demonstrated this age shift in deaths to younger populations. The major prevention strategies should therefore focus on older people – and not younger people – to minimize the loss to expected years of life.
Since the 1 August just over a thousand Covid deaths have been registered in England and Wales, most amongst the over 80s. (And one in five in the over 90s.) So Covid appears to have been – in the great majority of cases – a cofactor which tipped the frail and elderly. The current fixation on the daily diet of infection numbers is not helping anyone. Basing what happens next on comparisons with figures from the day before is leading to more anxiety, and ever-increasing restrictions. We’re told that hospital admissions are near capacity and can only get worse with hospitals in the north of England running out of Covid beds within a week. But, again we are left wondering: who is being admitted? And what for? The poor quality of data makes it very hard to gather a clear understanding.
Let’s look at people catching the virus in hospital. Using NHS England data, we estimated the probable number of those catching Covid-19 in hospital – known as Healthcare Associated Infections (HCAIs). We found for the most recent date of reporting, on 6 October, over 18 per cent of hospitalisations were being diagnosed after over seven days in hospital. Such patients are highly likely to have caught the virus in hospital, given that they were not diagnosed with it upon entry.
Hospital-acquired Covid infection appears to be particularly notable in the North West, where 17 per cent in the last week and 24 per cent on 6 October of the newly admitted patients who were subsequently tested, were positive with Covid-19. So they were probably HCAIs.
This is an obvious danger if you mix Covid patients together with non-Covid patients. Yet, little has been done to invest in ‘fever hospitals’ that could isolate Covid patients and help prevent the in-hospital spread of infection – keeping our hospitals open for the routine care that is so badly needed.
