Covid lockdown

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Australia's leftwing fascist regime firing upon lockdown protesters.[1]

Covid lockdown orders are decrees prohibiting the operation of businesses and forbidding people from leaving their homes during the 2020-2021 CCP global pandemic. Many of these lockdowns order were totalitarian decrees and violations of constitutionally protected rights issued by Democratic party mayors and governors in the United States. Gretchen Whitmer, Andrew Cuomo, Gavin Newsom, Phil Murphy, Bill de Blasio, and Lori Lightfoot were among the most notorious human rights abusers.

Communist psuedoscience

Just as mainstream media and the scientific community fell for the sucker-punch of Chinese Communist misinformation from the start of the coronavirus pandemic, so too have many fallen for lockdowns, based on the Chinese model, to contain the virus.

Lockdowns in the West have strengthened Communist Party of China's control over the global supply chain. Lockdowns have caused the economy of the Peoples Republic of China to continue growing while other economies around the world, mostly free societies but not only free societies to shrink.[2]

US

Stay-at-home orders were executive diktats by governors or county officials commanding people to remain at home during a prolonged period of weeks or months, such as during an alleged public health emergency. These orders have been used largely by liberals in public office to attempt to illegally close churches and gun stores, in violation of both the First Amendment (covering the freedoms of religion and assembly) and the Second Amendment (covering the right to lawful gun ownership), as well as many stores, movie theatres, restaurants and schools, and usually have exemptions for abortion clinics[3] and liquor stores. These orders often have dubious constitutional or legal authority; in fact, the same liberal public officials who hand down those diktats against the public frequently disregard their own mandates to do whatever they please (such as dining out in public) due to them being the liberal elitists that they are.

As of April 5, 2020, only nine states had not issued stay-at-home orders: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Penalties during the coronavirus crisis in 2020 were initially rare (so far), but have increased with the arrest of a pastor in Florida for holding a church service in alleged violation of a stay-at-home order issued by Hillsborough County,[4] even though he took numerous precautions against spreading the virus.

30 to 50 percent of heart attack patients did not receive treatment. 85 percent of live organ transplants were not performed. "We have been uniquely willing to sacrifice our children out of fear for adults," said Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former White House covid advisor.

While many of the worse shutdown orders have been by Democrat governors (most notoriously including New York's Andrew Cuomo and Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer), Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has prohibited much necessary medical care to its residents as part of his lockdown, despite largely empty hospitals. Gov. Abbott, not really a conservative, is posturing for a presidential run in 2024.

UK

Some British scientists have admitted that their committee exploited fear in totalitarian and “unethical” ways to control people’s behavior throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical,” said Gavin Morgan, a psychologist and member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B). “Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

SPI-B, according to The Telegraph, is a subcommittee that advises the British government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). In one damning example of their unethical use of fear, the subcommittee said in March 2020 that “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened” by COVID-19 and that British leaders needed to increase the population’s “perceived level of personal threat.”

“In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down,” one SPI-B member told Dodsworth. “There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.”[5]

RAND Corp. study report

Researchers at the RAND Corporation and the University of Southern California discovered COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them. They looked at 43 countries and all 50 states in the United States and published their assessment as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.

The RAND/USC team wrote: “[W]e fail to find that SIP [shelter-in-place] policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”

Countries that locked their citizens in their homes were experiencing declining — not increasing — excess mortality prior to lockdowns. In other words, lockdowns made the situation worse. The researchers were direct. “If SIP were implemented when excess deaths were rising then the results … would be biased towards finding that SIP policies lead to excess deaths. However, we find the opposite: countries that implemented SIP policies experienced a decline in excess mortality prior to implementation compared to countries that did not implement SIP policies.”

Finally, there was no advantage to locking down early or staying locked down longer. The researchers noted: “We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies.”

The RAND/USC study makes it clear that all the lockdowns accomplished was to add personal, psychological and economic devastation to the terrible personal and societal toll of illness and death.[6]

Social distancing

Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb claimed “nobody knows” where the six feet of social distancing separation recommendation came from. On an interview with CBS’s Face The Nation, Gottlieb indicated the rule was arbitrary and not necessarily based on science. “Nobody knows where it came from. Most people assume that the six feet of distance, the recommendation for keeping six feet apart, comes out of some old studies related to flu, where droplets don’t travel more than six feet.”

“When it became three feet, the basis for the CDC’s decision to ultimately revise it from six to three feet was a study that they conducted the prior fall [2019],” he explained. “So they changed it in the spring [2020].”[7]

Affects on children

A study by researchers at Brown University found that mean IQ scores of young children born during the pandemic tumbled by as much as 22 points while verbal, motor and cognitive performance all suffered as a result of lockdown. The study of 672 children born before and after the CCP pandemic began in March 2020 found that “[w]ith limited stimulation at home and less interaction with the world outside, pandemic-era children appear to have scored shockingly low on tests designed to assess cognitive development.”

“In the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score on standardised tests for children aged between three months and three years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78,” the study found. Researchers concluded that the primary reason for the impairment on cognitive functioning was lack of stimulation and interaction at home.

According to lead study author Sean Deoni, “The ability to course-correct becomes smaller, the older that child gets,” meaning that this inferior foundation is likely to impact the child throughout adolescence and into adulthood.

As Michael Curzon notes, all of these factors were exacerbated by lockdown measures which kept babies and young children away from other children, as well as mask mandates. “Children born over the past year of lockdowns – at a time when the Government has prevented babies from seeing elderly relatives and other extended family members, from socialising at parks or with the children of their parent’s friends, and from studying the expressions on the faces behind the masks of locals in indoor public spaces – have significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance compared to children born before, according to a new U.S. study. Tests on early learning, verbal development and non-verbal development all produced results that were far behind those from the years preceding the lockdowns.”[8]

References