Update (2/15/2023): This post has definitely stood the test of time. Not only do my original positions remain untouched but have only become further evidenced since I first published this article. There is no way around it: the response to COVID was an unmitigated disaster. As for updates, there is much that could be said along the lines of “I told you so” from what is now beyond any reasonable dispute, but minimally I should mention the recent Cochrane study for anybody still clinging maniacally to masks: “The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.”
The question everybody should (still) be asking is: How did so many of the so-called experts get so many fundamental things wrong?
Lockdowns are Not the Solution and Gyms Are Not the Problem
At this point it is not only irresponsible but immoral to use large-scale lockdowns as a means to control COVID transmission. Not only is there no good evidence to suggest lockdowns are effective but there is increasingly good evidence to suggest they are not effective (also here, here, here, and here), and it is increasingly evident they exact a painful toll in other respects, from increased deaths of despair to missed medical screenings (some estimates have the disruption of cancer screenings leading to as many or more excess deaths than from COVID itself) to projected famines/extreme poverty and more. Gyms are not the problem either and it’s an unscientific leap to assume otherwise, especially when putting fitness centers on the “guilty until proven innocent” list. Fortunately, Lifetime Fitness has fought back in MN asking for data to support the notion that health clubs are responsible for COVID transmission when they have had 3.15 million people pass through their doors but only 352 members or team members test positive for COVID.
Remember the following principle: Those who impose burdens have the burden of proof. In other words, it’s asinine (ethically and practically) to assume gyms and health clubs must prove to their government officials that they are not the problem. If you’re going to shut down people’s business and cut off their income streams the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that they ARE the problem AND that shutting them down will not only be effective but is indispensable to the common good. No such burden of proof has come close to being met.
IMPORTANT PRELIMARY: Given the recommendations of so many high-ranking bureaucratic experts (including Fauci) that stand in direct contradiction to the overwhelming evidence against the efficacy of those recommendations (lockdowns and masks, especially), we wonder… why? WHY is it that these experts are not only overwhelmingly in error but consistently doubling down? What’s more, why the immense pressure to cancel dissenting voices, reasonable skeptics? I do not have an answer to this question; not a confident one, anyway. I raise it only because I believe it’s important to consider before we begin to look at the evidence to see just how wrong they have been and still are, and to point out how seriously problematic this is. People should be able to trust those in positions of authority. Why, then, are they giving us almost every reason not to?
UPDATE: Three studies against lockdown effectiveness…
- Lancet – “…government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,”
- Frontiers in Public Health – ““Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate,”
- Tel Aviv University – “We would have expected to see fewer COVID-19 fatalities in countries with a tighter lockdown, but the data reveals that this is not the case,”
- European Journal of Clinical Investigation – Study finds that COVID lockdowns offer no clear benefit over other voluntary measures.
UPDATE: Another new paper finds that “government mandates were not significant in explaining COVID-19 deaths at the state level.”
UPDATE: Another study puts the non-institutionalized IFR (infection fatality rate) at .26% with average age of death at 76yo.
UPDATE: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reminds us to keep a sane perspective on how deadly COVID actually is.
UPDATE: Obviously, the above is relevant to everybody saying “YEAH, IF YOU SURVIVE!” regarding the superiority of natural immunity.
“The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.“
UPDATE: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reminds us of something important. If experts want the people’s trust, best not to lie (or grossly exaggerate).
UPDATE: Hallam research confirms “extremely” low risk of catching COVID at the gym. (infection rate of .75 per 100,000 visits!).
UPDATE: Scientific American reports the (un)surprising mental toll of COVID.
The article reports (also unsurprisingly) that the media bears considerable blame, “If people are engaged with a great deal of media, they are more likely to exhibit and report distress, but that distress seems to draw them further into the media. It’s a cyclical pattern from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.”
UPDATE: The Great Barrington Declaration lists (and provides references to) some of collateral damage of COVID lockdown policies – suppressed medical and cancer screenings, inflation in acute cardiovascular deaths, mental health distress among the elderly, increased relapse risk and alcohol abuse, etc.
UPDATE: Regarding the efficacy of masks, the following was recently Published in International Research Journal of Public Health…
UPDATE: Statistician Will Briggs offers a copy of a letter he wrote to a school board on why kids should not be wearing masks, and summarizes the overwhelming amount of research we have AGAINST the efficacy of masks.
Why kids should not be wearing masks, and how to calm those who think they should
UPDATE: W have another paper showing masks do not work, “The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.”
UPDATE: This article helpfully summarizes the currently available data (including extent and quality of studies) on mask efficacy. Quoting, “It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or benefits of medical masks. The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions.”
UPDATE: What possible motive — aside from being completely ignore — do people have for claiming Ivermectin (systematic review of evidence here) doesn’t work? “Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”
UPDATE: Below I post a series of charts (helpfully compiled by @ianmsc and statistician Matt Briggs) that tells its own story. While viewing, ask yourself: Do I see what I would EXPECT if these restrictions were as effective/important as they’ve been advertised to be?
Considering Objections.
Objection. But these regions are different.
Response. Granted, but they aren’t so different (in terms of demographics, population density, etc) to accommodate for the LACK of differences between what we would expect if – if, if, if! – the pro-lockdown/pro-mask hypothesis were true. Also note that even WITHIN the same region (Michigan, for example) we do not see what is reasonably expected once particular restrictions go into place but often see the opposite. A thought experiment: If you removed the markers of when various restrictions went into place, how many people — expert or otherwise — would be able to accurately identify when/where they went in? Again, given how effective these restrictive measures are claimed to be, this should not be an unreasonable assignment. But nobody is going to score well on that assignment: they would have literally no idea. Again, this counts strongly against the pro-lockdown/mask hypothesis.
Finally, while anybody can cherry pick data to fit their hypothesis, any hypothesis worthy of the name must have criteria for falsification, and here the picture could not be more obvious than it is: the overwhelming data we have consistently strikes against the pro-lockdown/pro-mask hypothesis. We not only do not find what we would expect if the hypothesis were true, but we consistently find what we would expect if the hypothesis were not true – that is, little to no meaningful/significant difference in places of strict lockdowns/mask mandates versus those without. Ironically, in many cases, places with more strict lockdowns/mask mandates are fairing worse than those without.
Objection. But people aren’t compliant.
Response. First, by the very fact that so many states/countries have prevented enormous amounts of interactions between people (major sporting events, concerts, fairs, pubs, restaurants, etc.) EVEN IF people were otherwise non-compliant apart from that, we would still expect to see significant differences… and yet, we do not. What’s more, compliance is extremely high in many areas – honestly, as high as anybody could reasonably expect – with respect to lockdowns and mask mandates and still we do not see the expected differences but many times the opposite.
Objection. COVID is a seriously deadly disease which has killed many people. Do you just want people to die?
Response. Imagine this. A friend is diagnosed with cancer. But instead of seeking treatment with credible scientific backing they begin shelling out their money to a witchdoctor who entices them to treat their condition with essential oils. You, being a friend concerned about their wellbeing, advise them against this approach. Not only do you believe the proposed treatment is ineffective, but positively harmful in other ways, including (if nothing else) to their financial status. Notice that nothing about your criticism denies the seriousness of their cancer diagnosis nor does it imply that deaths by cancer are not a tragedy. Mutatis mutandis with COVID restrictions. Nothing about criticizing COVID restrictions and exposing their ineffectiveness implies an indifference toward those who have suffered or died from this disease. An ineffective policy is an ineffective policy, full stop, and has nothing to do with how serious or deadly COVID is. The objection is irrelevant.
Related Episodes
COVID-19, The Presidential Election, and How to NOT Be Fooled By Statistics with Dr. Matt Briggs
EP 455: Have COVID Lockdowns Done More Harm Than Good? with Dr. Jay Richards.
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!