In the southern Australian state of Victoria, Premier Daniel Andrews has persisted with the most draconian and economically damaging controls in the entire world.
Recent reports from the government claimed 11 new cases detected, yet the citizens of Melbourne remain effectively locked in their homes for 22 hours a day. Businesses are forced closed while the inevitable rate of suicide and general societal destruction rages to levels never before seen in Australia.
Yes, you read that correctly. 11 (ELEVEN) cases. This, in the eyes of Daniel Andrews and his ‘Chief Health Officer Sutton’ is reason to keep almost 5 million people locked in their homes, and under a police-controlled curfew between 9pm-5am.
‘The Chairman’, or ‘Dear Leader’ as he has been coined, including by the left-leaning Washington Post, has refused to accommodate any alternate view of his strategy, including mounting pressure from more than 500 medical professionals who have implored the Premier to ease restrictions which they claim are doing far more harm than the COVID-19 to which they are intended to protect against.
Inconveniently for Andrews, yet more evidence emerges that lock-downs do not work, and indeed may cause MORE harm from an epidemiological perspective, not to mention the clearly proven second order effects.
Mr. Andrews cares not for the pesky research of Nobel-prize winning scientists, or fellow Professors of Epidemiology. He and his bureaucrats clearly know best.
Michael Levitt is a Nobel Prize-winning structural biology professor at Stanford who has been tracking the coronavirus consistently for the past six months. He is one of several scientists who have been advocating against the lockdown and backing alternative theories on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic. Levitt is not an epidemiologist, but has been studying the disease, using methods and data different from what most epidemiologists have been using.
One of the more critical elements of the interview is reported as follows.
TSD: What is your overall opinion on the concept of a lockdown and how do you think it should be modified for the U.S.?
ML: I think lockdown is a very crude, medieval-sounding phrase. I think closing schools, closing business and places of work is not such a great idea and causes huge damage to the economy. It’s wicked to people in the economy, because if you’re a gardener or you own a restaurant, you can’t work from home. (Sweden, which did not lockdown, has still faced economic damage, leading some to challenge the idea that government actions, and not the virus itself, are ultimately responsible for economic fallout.)
Further, Dr Michael Yeadon, a former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd. has published another scathing report, railing against the absurdity of lockdowns.
Aside from the clear lack of discernible benefit of lockdowns, the rigour and reliability of the much-relied upon COVID-tests is cause for considerable concern.
Dr Yeadon states “I believe I have identified a serious, really a fatal flaw in the PCR test used in what is called by the UK Government the Pillar 2 screening – that is, testing many people out in their communities. I’m going to go through this with care and in detail because I’m a scientist and dislike where this investigation takes me. I’m not particularly political and my preference is for competent, honest administration over the actual policies chosen. We’re a reasonable lot in UK and not much given to extremes.
What I’m particularly reluctant about is that, by following the evidence, I have no choice but to show that the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, misled the House of Commons and also made misleading statements in a radio interview. Those are serious accusations. I know that. I’m not a ruthless person. But I’m writing this anyway, because what I have uncovered is of monumental importance to the health and wellbeing of all the people living in the nation I have always called home.”
The Lancet has also now produced a report outlining that the most recently identified mutation of COVID-19 provided for “Clinical outcomes were considerably better in patients infected with the ∆382-variant than with the wild-type virus. “
Professor Levitt has been quick to outline this in recent Twitter posts, where he laments the fact that the evidence contained within the report proves that lockdowns impede the natural weakening of the virus.
That’s right. Lock downs make the virus impact WORSE!
Alas, as the saga continues, and lives are destroyed, the stubborn belligerence of many leaders around the world (oddly disproportionately represented by left-leaning individuals) leads to a significantly worse outcome than could have otherwise been achieved.
Just ask Sweden.
We suggest readers take the time to watch the interview with Professor Levitt embedded below. In his own words, the political influence has allowed “views to be corrupted” and the whole saga “is a disgraceful situation for science”.
Chart of the Day
NOBEL LAUREATE SLAMS “DISGRACEFUL” SCIENTIFIC REACTION TO PANDEMIC