Part 1 of this series looked at the toll on education and mental health, but this time we will examine whether COVID-19 countermeasures were necessary and the effectiveness of the main measures that have affected children, such as PCR tests, mask wearing, lockdowns, school closures and vaccinations.
Follow the science?
Given the known harm to children, as identified in Part 1, it was arguably incumbent on the Government to prove that the restrictions were necessary – that the threat was deadly to those targeted by the restrictions – and that its policy strategy was clearly working.
Were the children in danger?
based on work According to epidemiologist Professor Ioannidis, children have a 99.9987% chance of surviving COVID-19.
Number of children who died from The new coronavirus is tiny. Professor Norman Fenton“No healthy children have died in the UK in 2020,” said John E. Kelly, a world expert in risk assessment and statistics at Queen Mary, University of London. Of the eight UK children who have died: from Seven of the COVID-19 cases were in a life-threatening condition and one was in a very serious condition.
Every death is a tragedy, UK Office for National Statistics Only two children under the age of 18 have been reported to have died from COVID-19 in 2021.
in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Canada, united states of america, Ireland and Icelandno healthy children have died from COVID-19. and Analysis of FDA Data The risk is Any The rate of child deaths due to COVID-19 infection is 0.000015 (less than one in six million).
The Canadian Health Alliance points out that “without serious pre-existing conditions, the risk of death is statistically zero.” Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states: points out Common influenza is much more dangerous to children than COVID-19, so we can reasonably conclude that children were not at risk from COVID-19.
The first step in the strategy is testing
The PCR tests used to identify infected people – when rising numbers of cases were apparently justification for lockdowns, masks, isolation and closures – do not appear to be fit for purpose. Ireland's leading infectious diseases expert, Professor Jack Lambert, said: Said:
PCR cannot distinguish between live infectious virus and dead virus or viral fragments left over from a previous infection, so many “cases” have no real meaning in terms of medical condition or possible infection. Presumably harmless viral fragments will be identified and the test will be deemed “positive.” In Ireland, in Connecticut, (Cycle Threshold) A cutoff value of 35 to 45 is standard. A high Ct value (above 35 or above 30) suggests that the patient is not infected.
But we've been applying cycle frequencies in the range of 40-45. And the CDC has admitted that PCR tests don't work. “The tests are not actually licensed to assess infectivity,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said. “97% of positive tests don't detect live, infectious virus.” In other words, the mechanism for identifying infected people was flawed.
Lockdown
But what about strategies introduced as a result of testing? 24 peer-reviewed research papers show that “lockdowns” have little effect on mortality. A meta-analysis conducted by Danes of Johns Hopkins University (Reported skeptically American Journal of Managed Care) found that (p. 48):
Closing schools was associated with a 5.9% (precision-weighted) reduction in COVID-19 mortality, with an arithmetic mean of 0.2% and a median of 0.0%.
The researchers problem A scathing indictment of policy failure:
In general, there is no evidence of significant relationships between the most commonly used NPIs. (Non-pharmaceutical interventions) And then Covid-19.
They too Conclusion:
Overall, lockdowns and restrictions on gatherings appear to increase COVID-19 deaths.
Why was no cost-benefit analysis carried out? Or was one carried out? The Dutch government carried out a cost-benefit analysis which conclusively showed the damage, but it was covered up. Freedom of Information Request“The negative public health impacts of lockdowns are virus“
In August 2020, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) report The report concluded that children are much less likely to catch the virus. “Reopening of schools is not associated with a significant increase in community transmission,” the report said. British Medical Journal 2021 “There is an emerging consensus that schools do not appear to be amplifiers of infection and that infections in schools simply reflect community spread,” it said. Germany It also shows that school closures have not helped to curb the spread of COVID-19.
mask
how is it mask? Recent government evidence summary No statistically significant effect of face coverings on infection was found. Dozens of studies It has been shown that masks do not inhibit the transmission of respiratory viruses. Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are transmitted through aerosols and can easily travel around and through surgical masks, N95 masks, cloth masks, and even respirators. Mandatory mask wearing in schools and other facilities is Failed to reduce The spread of the new coronavirus infection.
A review of the scientific literature found that ProfessorEssole Paul Alexander To tell:
At a time when the low-pathogenicity Omicron variant should invite society to relax and take a deep breath, we are instead witnessing a new panic among the authorities, who are coming out of their drawers with useless, absurd and, above all, extremely harmful measures, such as the forced wearing of masks for long periods of time on children in schools.
These brutal measures have caused outrage not only among many parents, but also among doctors and scientists who are honest and know the actual scientific data. But the doctrine of wearing masks (a measure that was never envisaged in any pandemic prevention plan) is so ingrained in people's minds that many politicians, teachers, journalists and even doctors continue to believe in it. The mass of evidence on the issue of whether or not to wear masks in the fight against COVID-19 is extremely solid.
Ian Miller, author Without mask: The global failure of mandatory mask-wearing due to the new coronavirusreports that evidence has been accumulating over time. mask and Obligations It didn't help at all. From real-world data to randomized controlled trials, Dan Mask – 19 According to the study: fiction Masks are a necessary intervention.
The fourth element of the strategy – do vaccines benefit children?
There is evidence that the harms caused by genetically modified therapies (vaccines) clearly outweigh the benefits to children. According to the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on 3 September 2021:
The margin of benefit, based primarily on health considerations, is currently considered too small to support advice for a universal program of vaccination for all healthy 12-15 year old children.
Swiss Policy Studies They also wrote that the vaccine's preventive effect against symptomatic infection immediately after vaccination dropped from a range of 90% to 95% to nearly 0% within about six months. The fact that the preventive effect of the current coronavirus vaccine against infection and transmission only weakens rapidly over a short period of time means that the coronavirus vaccine is do not have It contributes to infection control at both the individual and population levels, and therefore the risk-benefit ratio may still be positive (based on current evidence) for older adults and other risk groups, but not for healthy young adults and children.
In short, the restrictions appear to have been entirely unnecessary, ineffective and based on no science. and This has caused widespread and devastating damage. Dr. Claire Craig Send it properly policy:
The concept of asymptomatic transmission provided the basis for the belief that lockdowns were necessary and might be effective, and for mask-wearing, fueling an atmosphere of fear with the idea that anyone could be a threat. The ability to test and detect tiny and irrelevant amounts of the virus has completely distorted our view of reality. The myth that seemingly healthy people are a potential threat to others needs to be permanently shattered, so that people can stop treating each other primarily as potential vectors of disease.
Pandata chairman Nick Hudson was similarly blunt, concluding that “doing nothing would have been far better” and would have produced far better results than what was actually achieved: “certainly not spending billions of dollars prioritizing pandemic response over other urgent medical issues where investing in those resources would have immediate and long-term benefits.”
The lost benefits are the benefits to children from investment in school infrastructure, much-needed spending on special educational needs, counselling services etc. Did no one in government consider the opportunity cost?
A generation will ask why their lives were ruined by policies designed to fight the virus, when all scientific evidence shows it does not affect them, and the measures put in place to restrict children's movements clearly did not work. Surely someone must be held accountable; otherwise, how can an accountable democracy function?
Part three looks at the overall impact of government policies and addresses the question of who is to blame, and if there is anyone to blame. It revisits some of the material from parts one and two, pulling this whole fiasco together and providing a complete picture of the damage and policy failures.
