The Circular Lockdown

https://pad.mymovies.it/filmclub/2007/02/177/coverlg.jpg
Scene from Brazil

I don’t think lockdowns work. Others think they do.

How do we prove it one way or the other?

Here is our tedious argument:

Lockdowner: Lockdowns work. Look at a successful example like Melbourne. Then look at how bad Sweden was compared to other Scandinavian countries.

Dissident: But what about all the places that had lockdowns together with bad outcomes, like the UK? And what about places that didn’t have strict lockdowns and still did okay, like South Korea?

Lockdowner: South Korea got lucky by closing its borders early. Countries like the UK didn’t lock down hard enough or long enough.

Dissident: But some countries locked down harder and longer than Melbourne, i.e. Peru, but it didn’t seem to work at all.

Lockdowner: Well, how do you know it didn’t work? Maybe the situation in Peru would have been even worse had they not locked down.

Dissident: Or maybe it would have been the same. Or maybe it would have been better overall given that the side effects of lockdown would not have been suffered.

Lockdowner: So you’re saying you want to kill old people and fat people, right?

Or something like that.

We must also consider the places that have painted themselves into a corner through apparently successful lockdowns. It seems that unless vaccines prevent infection (apparently existing ones may not), Australia and New Zealand must continue rolling lockdowns every time there is an inevitable outbreak, disallow most visitors and require a two-week quarantine for arrivals . . . until the heat death of the universe.

It is the panicked voters who insist upon it.

Not great for countries that depend largely on tourism and overseas students. Australia in 2050 is going to be Mad Max in facemasks and entirely set indoors.

Early adopter

How on Earth can we sensibly debate the efficacy of lockdowns when this is the messy state of things?

I looked up research into lockdown effectiveness and found exactly what you’d expect: like every other aspect of the Cov, studies are contradictory. No doubt if you’ve already got a firm notion of what result you want to find, you’ll have no trouble getting the answer you’re looking for.

If you go in with an open mind, the answer you’ll arrive at is ‘fecked if I know.’

And then one needs to weigh that against research into the negative effects of lockdowns, which I’m sure is equally inconsistent.

There’s so much stupid argumentation about lockdowns. Too much fear. Too much populism and politicking by leaders and scientists alike. When infections rise despite lockdowns, we hear arguments similar to those in favour of communism after the collapse of the Soviet Union: ‘True lockdowns have never been tried!’

We lack a falsifiable hypothesis. No matter what happens after a lockdown, governments will never declare failure and try a different strategy. The Philippines has had a strict lockdown for getting on to a year now and it appears to have done nothing at all, but no one dares admit it, or even think it.

On the other hand, when infection rates eventually slow and fall this is taken to be proof positive of the lockdown’s efficacy, even if the fall occurs many months after lockdowns were introduced. No one wonders if maybe herd immunity, social distancing and seasonal changes might be kicking in. It is as though we have completely forgotten all the different factors that might influence a pandemic’s progress except for a single variable we feel is within our control: the strictness of lockdowns.

Oh and mask-wearing, about which all points in this article equally apply.

Then there’s the issue of long-term effects of the pandemic and responses that are yet unknown.

What will happen to death rates over the next two years?

It’s possible that the countries with high Covid tolls will have much lower-than-average death tolls in the near future due to the reduction in ‘dry tinder’, just as those that had particularly bad flu seasons in 2019 may have suffered less in 2020 from the pandemic.

Those countries that largely avoided Covid like Australia and Taiwan might, conversely, have built up dry tinder. The same measures that prevented the spread of Covid also stopped influenza and other diseases most harmful to the elderly and unwell. The death rate in these countries might surge in the winter months of 2021 or 2022. [Edit: 2022 at the earliest as clearly nothing is going to open soon.]

And then there are the many, largely unknown consequences of lockdown such as unemployment, missed early detection of cancers and heart problems, missed school attendance and general isolation.

Some of these ill-effects would be present even with no lockdown, but lockdowns will presumably worsen these issues. The longer and stricter, the worse the long-run effects of these problems is likely to be.

Will these issues also cause a spike in deaths over 2021 or 2022? Or will missed education have long-term effects that will been seen in decades?

Nobody knows.

I don’t know if lockdowns are effective in saving net lives or years of life, nor under what circumstances this may be so. I am against lockdowns because (a) their effectiveness is unclear and (b) severe lockdowns are not worth it anyway due to the non-death harm they cause.

Lockdown proponents should do us the same courtesy. They should admit that the long-run effects are uncertain, acknowledge (not censor) counterarguments, and argue from probabilities and existing evidence rather than from a position of papal scientific infallibility.


Also available on many other platforms.

9 comments

  1. Kentucky Headhunter · February 23

    “How on Earth can we sensibly debate the efficacy of lockdowns when this is the messy state of things?”

    You can’t have a rational discussion with the people who have been scared witless by the media/propaganda outlets.

    You can’t have an honest discussion with people who want to rule over others and will use any excuse to do so.

    Is this really the case? We can never know for sure because we will never be given the real numbers, but I bet it’s a lot closer to “true” than “false”.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Marriagesexandmore · February 24

    The Branch Covidians are truly brainwashed into thinking this whole scamdemic was a legitimate pandemic. I’d like to to know the true died of vs died with covid numbers. The CDC admitted they counted died with as died ofs, but you likely cannot find that video anymore. I bet this whole thing would look a lot different with the true numbers. They will stretch this out as long as they can to normalize government overreach. I suspect we will never recover from the damage that has been done. People lack the balls to say enough…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Gunner Q · February 24

    “How on Earth can we sensibly debate the efficacy of lockdowns when this is the messy state of things?”

    If the proposed solution is total government control of society then the problem does not exist.

    Normies needing a comparison can look at California vs Florida. Cali had massive winter lockdowns yet 40% of Los Angeles’ population are known to have had da ‘Rona, while Florida with no state mandate is 11th lowest in infection rates last I checked.

    Also, if the “death rate of the infected” is 0.2% then why are we even talking about a pandemic?

    This is all moot, however. The lockdowns became permanent when the government hired legions of new bureaucrats such as contact tracers to administer lockdown scenarios. Today it’s COVID lockdowns, tomorrow it’ll be Climate Change lockdowns, next week Indigenous Peoples lockdowns and finally, Christmas lockdowns which were probably the goal all along.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Liz · February 26

      Truth. These are the conditions that summon all manner of Good Idea Fairies.

      Like

  4. luisman · February 24

    Reblogged this on Nicht-Linke Blogs.

    Like

  5. luisman · February 24

    And the German parliament has decided, they want COVID-Passports in some kind of electronic form.They wanted this before already in a so called health card (issued by the health insurer), with all health information stored on the card. If you take the stance that not a single one of the government measures are even remotely related to the virus or desease, you will find a lot of reasons for these actions taken, which relate to financial benefits for some small groups and to secure power for the idiots in charge.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. JaXX · February 24

    Lockdowns are BS and totally contradict not only actual (i.e. pre-ConVid fear porn) science, but even the various governments’ very own ‘pandemic plans’ – something Australia and the UK apparently had paid millions of dollars for, only to subsequently totally ignore them and do pretty much exactly the opposite of what was being considered ‘best practice’.

    The mental health issues and the general economic damage resulting from these ridiculous policies are going to put WuFlu to shame when it comes to eventual cost and/or the number of deaths.

    BTW, it’s not just Florida vs California. Do a search for North vs South Dakota to see how well the mask mandates and similar BS have worked.

    Here in Australia, Victoria has had by far the most drastic lockdowns, masks and other restrictions, yet it has also had some 90% of the deaths reported as having been caused by the Chinese pox.

    By this stage in the game, many sensible people are leaving VIC in droves, yet the morons that are still there apparently continue to support Dicktator Dan Andrews (the state premier) to such an extent he’d easily win an election.

    You really can’t cure stupid.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. ray · February 26

    Men value freedom. Women value safety. When women dominate nations, they decline into hysterical totalitarianism. This is why previously, women were not allowed in the public square or to usurp male prerogatives. This is gonna be a painful lesson.

    Once globalist elements can manufacture consent via collective female political power, everything is on the table because, of course, SAFETY. In case I haven’t mentioned it prior. Lockdown the planet, no problem, it’s best not to take chances. Close the economy? If even one life is saved, it’s worth it. Disallow gatherings, forbid human interaction . . . all good. After all Think of the Children. Etc.

    Women are apt and ready tools for evil interests, and also for weak men who wish to ascend above their stations.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s