Short Term is Long Term - Early is Late

What on earth does “short term” mean to Rachel DuRose? What does “early” mean to her? And now, with the surge of excess deaths in many of the lockdown countries, she claims lockdowns “saved lives”.

Short term lockdowns could be the key to ending pandemics early, claims journalist Rachel DuRose in a new Vox article, comparing lockdowns in the West and the Zero-Covid policy in China.

While acknowledging how the current Covid-19 outbreak in China started while strict lockdown was in fact still in place, the author now claims they were “successful”. This is almost three years after a respiratory virus with a 99.85% survival rate spread around the world, with lockdowns imposed again and again for two years - the first time in history for a disease of such low severity. Successful? How? Because they were “short term” and ended the pandemic “early”. Therefore we should not think twice to use them again in the future.

What on earth does “short term” mean to Rachel DuRose? What does “early” mean to her?

And now, with the surge of excess deaths in many of the lockdown countries, she claims lockdowns “saved lives”.

The fact is, as everyone who cares to know knows, that in the end lockdowns had zero effect on Covid-19 deaths, they didn’t prevent spread of the disease as research has clearly shown; all they did was to ruin lives, ruin economies, ruin children’s future. And make the rich richer, of course.

Yet, Rachel DuRose has the audacity to claim lockdowns are useful; that almost constant, though usually intermittent lockdowns over a couple of years is “short term”; that a pandemic - still ongoing after three year, no end in sight - ended “early”!

Rachel DuRose’s blatantly illogical conclusion is doubtless shared by a large portion of public health experts. This is a view based on shallow reasoning and total disregard for the facts. In fact this kind of reasoning is a prime example of the danger we face when important decisions are not based on critical thinking, but on groupthink, coupled with an utter lack of moral responsibility.

I urge my readers to read her full article. Reading it with a critical eye helps understand the extent to which discussion of public health has plunged into pure nonsense.

But I urge DuRose to familiarize herself with the honest account of Kevin Bass MD, the mainstream scientist who, in a recent Newsweek article has the integrity to admit he was wrong, and doesn’t shy away from acknowledging the severity of the consequences.