TERB In Need of a Banner

How Lockdowns Made Us Sicker

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,886
1,660
113
How Lockdowns Made Us Sicker

TUESDAY, DEC 20, 2022 - 05:00 AM

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-lockdowns-made-us-sicker/

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,


Early during lockdowns in 2020, when the whole of the media marched in lockstep with the most appalling reach of public policy in our lifetimes, two doctors from Bakersfield, California went out on a limb and objected.




Their names: Dan Erikson and Artin Massihi from Accelerated Urgent Care. They held a press conference in which they claimed that lockdowns would only delay but not finally control the virus. Moreover, they predicted, at the end of this, we would also be sicker than ever because of our lack of exposure to endemic pathogens.

You could say they were brave but why should it require bravery simply to share conventional wisdom that is part of every medical background? Indeed, the idea that reducing exposure to pathogens creates more vulnerability to disease is a point every generation in the last hundred years has learned in school.

How well I can recall the outrage! They were treated like seditious cranks and new media blasted their comments as somehow radically heterodox, even though they said nothing I had not learned in 9th-grade biology class. It was utterly bizarre how quickly lockdowns became an orthodoxy, enforced, as we are now learning, by media and tech platforms working closely with government agencies to warp public perceptions of science.

Among those warpings was an incredible blackout concerning the basics of natural immunity. My goodness, why did this happen? It’s not conspiracy to draw an obvious reason: they wanted to sell a vaccine.And they wanted to push the idea that Covid was universally deadly for everyone so that they could justify their “whole-of-society” approach to lockdowns.

Here we are three years later and the headlines are all over the place.

And so on.

Isn’t it time to give these doctors some credit and perhaps regret their vicious treatment at the hands of the press?


Video at rumble , unfortunately YouTube do not permit this video.( Due to youtube censorship )





Meanwhile, it’s time we get clear on some basics. There is no one better to lay it out other than the greatest living theoretical epidemiologist, Sunetra Gupta. I think one way to understand her contribution is to see her as the Voltaire or the Adam Smith of infectious disease. The very essence of liberal political economy and liberal theory generally from the Age of Enlightenment to the present is the observation that society manages itself. It does not need a top-down plan and the attempt to centrally plan the economy or culture always produces unintended consequences.

So too for the issue of infectious disease. Dr. Gupta’s observation is that we evolved with pathogens in a delicate dance in which we share the same ecosphere, both suffering and benefiting from our entanglement with them. Disturbing that balance can wreck the immune system and leave us more vulnerable and sicker than ever before.

Writing in the Telegraph, she says “I am used to viewing infectious disease from an ecological perspective. Therefore, it did not come as much of a surprise to me that some non-Covid seasonal respiratory diseases almost immediately started to take a knock on the head during lockdown. Many took this to be an indication that lockdowns were working to stop the spread of disease, forgetting that the impact of lockdowns on already established or ‘endemic’ diseases is completely different to the impact on a new disease in its ‘epidemic’ phase.”

She explains that society-wide pathogenic avoidance creates an “immunity debt,” a gap in the level of protection that you have developed from previous exposure. There is a “threshold of immunity in the population at which rates of new infections start to decline — known as the herd immunity threshold. If we are below this threshold, we are in immunity debt; if we are above it, we are in credit — at least for a while.”

With normal diseases, we experience immunity debt in winter and so the herd immunity threshold rises. That’s when we experience more infection. As Fr. Naugle points out, this reality is reflected in our liturgical calendar during the winter months when the message is to look out for danger, stay healthy, be with friends and family, and intensify your concern for issues of life and death.

However, this period of conventional sicknesses gives rise to an immunity surplus as we move into spring and we can go about our lives with more confidence and a carefree attitude, and hence the symbolism of Easter as the beginning of new life. And yet the months of sun and exercise and party time gradually contribute to building up another immunity debt in the population which will be paid again in the winter months.

Notice that this pattern repeats itself in every year and every generation, all without the help of government public health agencies. However, writes Gupta, “disturbing this order can have a profound impact on an individual’s ability to resist disease. More than anything, it is clear that we are experiencing an entirely predictable perturbation in our finely balanced ecological relationship with the organisms which are capable of causing serious disease.”

Lockdowns changed nothing about these seasonal and natural processes except to make our immunity debt deeper and scarier than ever. To be sure, lockdowns in the end did not stop the pathogen that causes Covid. Instead, they only forced one group to be exposed earlier and more often than other groups, and this allocation of exposure took place entirely based on a politically scripted model.

As we saw, the working classes experienced exposure first and the ruling classes experienced exposure later. The policies entrenched a grim and medieval-style political hierarchy of infection. Rather than encouraging the vulnerable populations to shelter and everyone else to gain immunities through living normal life, lockdown policies pushed the working classes in front of the pathogen as a protection scheme for ruling classes.

And yet now, the results are in. Those who delayed infection for as long as possible, or otherwise tried to game the careful ecological balance with newly invented shots, not only eventually got Covid but made themselves even more vulnerable to diseases that are already endemic in the population.

What Gupta has explained with such erudition was actually the common understanding of previous generations. And nothing about the dangerous innovation of lockdown ideology has changed these natural processes. They only ended up making us sicker than ever. So there is some irony in reading stories of alarm in the high-end media. The right response to such alarm is simply to say: what else did you expect?

The Bakersfield doctors were right all along. So was my mother, her mother, and her mother before her. Together they had far more wisdom about infectious disease than Anthony Fauci and all his cohorts.
 
Last edited:

The Fox

Feeling Supersonic
Jun 4, 2004
819
562
93
I wouldn’t quote an Epidemiologists who’s dedicated a life to understanding disease patterns to help with health care issues. It’s dangerous on this forum.
 

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,886
1,660
113
I wouldn’t quote an Epidemiologists who’s dedicated a life to understanding disease patterns to help with health care issues. It’s dangerous on this forum.
Going to ask a dumb question.
Why?
 

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
10,051
9,097
113
Reminder:
Covid killed millions.
Colds and regular flu did not.
The Healthcare system was on the verge of collapse. Refrigerated trucks were required for the bodies in usa.
In fact, in USA it still has not recovered as serious shortage of nurses etc who all left health care after the trauma of the covid pandemic.
Thus let's not get amnesia here.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
22,915
18,003
113
Reminder:
Covid killed millions.
Colds and regular flu did not.
The Healthcare system was on the verge of collapse. Refrigerated trucks were required for the bodies in usa.
In fact, in USA it still has not recovered as serious shortage of nurses etc who all left health care after the trauma of the covid pandemic.
Thus let's not get amnesia here.
Facts vs Fiction, thanks for trying. LOL
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,404
72,051
113
Ahh.
"Immunity debt" is still the line they want to take, I see.

I do like the weird bit where Christianity - via the liturgical calendar - had this all figured out.
 

The Fox

Feeling Supersonic
Jun 4, 2004
819
562
93
Isn’t this just grade 5 shit. You get sick, build antibodies and your body knows how to fight it next time.

And for context, I’m talking common viruses, RSV, Flu, Covid. Not aids.

Why is it hard to accept that children of a certain age, who were not exposed to a natural environment to build a normal immune system, are getting sick.

It’s the immunity gap, not debt and it comes from the medical community, not some right wing freaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hands95

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,404
72,051
113
Isn’t this just grade 5 shit. You get sick, build antibodies and your body knows how to fight it next time.

And for context, I’m talking common viruses, RSV, Flu, Covid. Not aids.

Why is it hard to accept that children of a certain age, who were not exposed to a natural environment to build a normal immune system, are getting sick.

It’s the immunity gap, not debt and it comes from the medical community, not some right wing freaks.
The problem is that people aren't using it in the very normal and uncontroversial way of "kids who didn't get exposed to something are susceptible to it".

They are trying to sell it as "immunity debt" where kids now have weaker immune systems and are permanently harmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Fox

krealtarron

Hardened Member
Nov 12, 2021
4,934
9,359
113
There is no one better to lay it out other than the greatest living theoretical epidemiologist, Sunetra Gupta.
Greatest living? Really? Then how come no one heard of this bitch? :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: squeezer

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,546
114,092
113

COVID-19
Further information: Great Barrington Declaration

In March 2020, some modelling of the COVID-19 pandemic by Gupta and colleagues was released to the media.[13] Their model suggested that up to 68% of the UK population could already have been infected, suggesting broader immunity and a subsiding threat. The findings differed greatly from the work of other experts and quickly came under criticism.[14] In May that year, she told UnHerd that she believed "the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in [the UK]. So, I think [the infection fatality rate] would be definitely less than one in a thousand, and probably closer to one in ten thousand."[15][16] Both before and after this statement, the estimates of other experts have fallen in a range much higher than this.[17][18][19][20]

Gupta has been a critic of lockdowns in the pandemic.[21][22] She was one of the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity through infection, while stating that vulnerable people should be protected from the virus.[23][21][22] The World Health Organization, as well as other numerous academic and public-health bodies, stated that the strategy proposed by the declaration is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis.[24][25] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States said in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement" and said it was "selling false hope that will predictably backfire".[26]

In 2021, she was an author at the Brownstone Institute, a new think tank founded by Jeffrey Tucker where senior roles were held by Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, her co-authors on the Great Barrington Declaration.[27]




Great Barrington Declaration


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Great Barrington Declaration was an open letter published in October 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.[1][2] It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise continued functioning normally.[3][4] The envisaged result was herd immunity within three months, as SARS-CoV-2 swept through the population.[1][2][3] Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, signed there on 4 October 2020, and published on 5 October.[2][5] At the time, COVID-19 vaccines were considered to be months away from general availability.[3] The document presumed that the disease burden of mass infection could be tolerated, that any infection would confer long term sterilizing immunity, and it made no mention of physical distancing, masks, contact tracing,[6] or long COVID, which has left patients with debilitating symptoms months after the initial infection.[7][8]

The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[11][12] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[9] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial.[14][15][16]

Authors

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration at the American Institute for Economic Research. (L–R) Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya

Sunetra Gupta is a Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the Oxford University Department of Zoology.[21] Gupta has been a critic of early COVID-19 lockdown strategy, arguing that the cost is too high for the poorest in society, and expressing concern about the risk of widespread starvation in many countries because of lockdown-related disruptions in food supply chains.[2] In 2020, Gupta led a group which in March released a widely criticized modelling study suggesting, in one of its scenarios, that half the population of the United Kingdom might already have been infected with COVID-19,[22] and in September a preprint study which argued herd immunity thresholds might be lower than expected due to pre-existing immunity in the population.[23] Rupert Beale of the Francis Crick Institute described the March preprint as "ridiculous" and "not even passed by peer review".[24] Gupta was one author of a 21 September letter to the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, recommending shielding of vulnerable groups of people rather than the lockdown method of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[25] Of the declaration's signatories, Gupta said: "We're saying, let's just do this for the three months that it takes for the pathogen to sweep through the population", arguing that the situation would only be temporary.[6] Gupta has dismissed claims of having a right-wing perspective, claiming to be "more Left than Labour".[24]




United States infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci called the proposals in the Great Barrington Declaration "nonsense and very dangerous".[11]

Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, called the declaration "ridiculous", "total nonsense" and "very dangerous", saying that it would lead to a large number of avoidable deaths.[11][59][60] Fauci said that 30 percent of the population had underlying health conditions that made them vulnerable to the virus and that "older adults, even those who are otherwise healthy, are far more likely than young adults to become seriously ill if they get COVID-19."[59] He added, "This idea that we have the power to protect the vulnerable is total nonsense because history has shown that that's not the case. And if you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious diseases, they will tell you that that is risky, and you'll wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think that we just got to look that square in the eye and say it's nonsense."[59] The Infectious Diseases Society of America, representing over 12,000 doctors and scientists, released a statement calling the Great Barrington Declaration's proposals "inappropriate, irresponsible and ill-informed".[61] 14 other American public-health groups, among them the Trust for America's Health and the American Public Health Association, published an open letter in which they warned that following the recommendations of the Great Barrington Declaration would "haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives", adding that "the declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way."[9] Europe's largest association of virologists, the Gesellschaft für Virologie [de], released a statement co-authored by Christian Drosten saying the declaration's proposals were liable to result in "a humanitarian and economic catastrophe".[62]

The then-U.S. National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins, told The Washington Post that the proposed strategy was "a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment."[12][4] In a private email to Fauci, Collins called the authors of the declaration "fringe epidemiologists" and said that "There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises".[32][63] The Wall Street Journal's editorial board accused Collins of "work[ing] with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration" and of "Shut[ting] down covid debate".[63]

William Haseltine, a former Harvard Medical School professor and founder of Harvard's cancer and HIV/AIDS research departments, told CNN, "Herd immunity is another word for mass murder. If you allow this virus to spread … we are looking at 2 to 6 million Americans dead. Not just this year, but every year."[12]


She's a quacker.
 

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,886
1,660
113

COVID-19
Further information: Great Barrington Declaration

In March 2020, some modelling of the COVID-19 pandemic by Gupta and colleagues was released to the media.[13] Their model suggested that up to 68% of the UK population could already have been infected, suggesting broader immunity and a subsiding threat. The findings differed greatly from the work of other experts and quickly came under criticism.[14] In May that year, she told UnHerd that she believed "the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in [the UK]. So, I think [the infection fatality rate] would be definitely less than one in a thousand, and probably closer to one in ten thousand."[15][16] Both before and after this statement, the estimates of other experts have fallen in a range much higher than this.[17][18][19][20]

Gupta has been a critic of lockdowns in the pandemic.[21][22] She was one of the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity through infection, while stating that vulnerable people should be protected from the virus.[23][21][22] The World Health Organization, as well as other numerous academic and public-health bodies, stated that the strategy proposed by the declaration is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis.[24][25] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States said in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement" and said it was "selling false hope that will predictably backfire".[26]

In 2021, she was an author at the Brownstone Institute, a new think tank founded by Jeffrey Tucker where senior roles were held by Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, her co-authors on the Great Barrington Declaration.[27]




Great Barrington Declaration


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Great Barrington Declaration was an open letter published in October 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.[1][2] It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise continued functioning normally.[3][4] The envisaged result was herd immunity within three months, as SARS-CoV-2 swept through the population.[1][2][3] Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, signed there on 4 October 2020, and published on 5 October.[2][5] At the time, COVID-19 vaccines were considered to be months away from general availability.[3] The document presumed that the disease burden of mass infection could be tolerated, that any infection would confer long term sterilizing immunity, and it made no mention of physical distancing, masks, contact tracing,[6] or long COVID, which has left patients with debilitating symptoms months after the initial infection.[7][8]

The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[11][12] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[9] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial.[14][15][16]

Authors

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration at the American Institute for Economic Research. (L–R) Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya

Sunetra Gupta is a Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the Oxford University Department of Zoology.[21] Gupta has been a critic of early COVID-19 lockdown strategy, arguing that the cost is too high for the poorest in society, and expressing concern about the risk of widespread starvation in many countries because of lockdown-related disruptions in food supply chains.[2] In 2020, Gupta led a group which in March released a widely criticized modelling study suggesting, in one of its scenarios, that half the population of the United Kingdom might already have been infected with COVID-19,[22] and in September a preprint study which argued herd immunity thresholds might be lower than expected due to pre-existing immunity in the population.[23] Rupert Beale of the Francis Crick Institute described the March preprint as "ridiculous" and "not even passed by peer review".[24] Gupta was one author of a 21 September letter to the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, recommending shielding of vulnerable groups of people rather than the lockdown method of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[25] Of the declaration's signatories, Gupta said: "We're saying, let's just do this for the three months that it takes for the pathogen to sweep through the population", arguing that the situation would only be temporary.[6] Gupta has dismissed claims of having a right-wing perspective, claiming to be "more Left than Labour".[24]




United States infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci called the proposals in the Great Barrington Declaration "nonsense and very dangerous".[11]

Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, called the declaration "ridiculous", "total nonsense" and "very dangerous", saying that it would lead to a large number of avoidable deaths.[11][59][60] Fauci said that 30 percent of the population had underlying health conditions that made them vulnerable to the virus and that "older adults, even those who are otherwise healthy, are far more likely than young adults to become seriously ill if they get COVID-19."[59] He added, "This idea that we have the power to protect the vulnerable is total nonsense because history has shown that that's not the case. And if you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious diseases, they will tell you that that is risky, and you'll wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think that we just got to look that square in the eye and say it's nonsense."[59] The Infectious Diseases Society of America, representing over 12,000 doctors and scientists, released a statement calling the Great Barrington Declaration's proposals "inappropriate, irresponsible and ill-informed".[61] 14 other American public-health groups, among them the Trust for America's Health and the American Public Health Association, published an open letter in which they warned that following the recommendations of the Great Barrington Declaration would "haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives", adding that "the declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way."[9] Europe's largest association of virologists, the Gesellschaft für Virologie [de], released a statement co-authored by Christian Drosten saying the declaration's proposals were liable to result in "a humanitarian and economic catastrophe".[62]

The then-U.S. National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins, told The Washington Post that the proposed strategy was "a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment."[12][4] In a private email to Fauci, Collins called the authors of the declaration "fringe epidemiologists" and said that "There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises".[32][63] The Wall Street Journal's editorial board accused Collins of "work[ing] with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration" and of "Shut[ting] down covid debate".[63]

William Haseltine, a former Harvard Medical School professor and founder of Harvard's cancer and HIV/AIDS research departments, told CNN, "Herd immunity is another word for mass murder. If you allow this virus to spread … we are looking at 2 to 6 million Americans dead. Not just this year, but every year."[12]


She's a quacker.
Really wikpedia…lol.
In University or High School quoting from wikipedia as a source you get a F.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,546
114,092
113
Really wikpedia…lol.
In University or High School quoting from wikipedia as a source you get a F.
This isn't university and Wiki is a pretty good source.

So your "brilliant epidemiologist" is far right politically, is financially linked with a crypto asshole and is despised by every other epidemiologist out there. Right?
 

Pleasure Hound

Well-known member
Dec 8, 2021
3,268
2,268
113
This isn't university and Wiki is a pretty good source.

So your brilliant epidemiologist is far right politically, is financially linked with a crypto asshole and is despised by every other epidemiologist out there. Right?
Addict2Sex should really be blanket-ignored at this point, We all know that he will never change his mind and that it is a waste of time even talking with him.

Like JCPro and others, he is only on this site to provoke and has likely never seen an escort, let alone review one.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,546
114,092
113
Addict2Sex should really be blanket-ignored at this point, We all know that he will never change his mind and that it is a waste of time even talking with him.

Like JCPro and others, he is only on this site to provoke and has likely never seen an escort, let alone review one.
This catch was too easy and I like looking shit up.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts