Advertisement
Revolver Exclusive Study: COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself
August 31, 2020 (4w ago)
86

A groundbreaking new study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens.

Up until this point there had been no simple, rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Accordingly, Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that: to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.” Simply put, we have drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States, and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns. The results are nothing short of staggering, and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus itself.

The COVID-19 lockdown measures that Americans have had to endure for the greater part of 2020 represent one of the most dramatic, consequential, and damaging policy measures undertaken in this nation’s history. For the first time in its history, America has experienced a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.

As with everything in 2020 America, these lockdown measures have become deeply politicized. President Trump opposes further devastating lockdowns. In his recent Republican National Convention speech, President Trump raised the point that lockdowns have had very real and very devastating effects on the lives of many Americans.

President Trump: “The cost of the Biden shutdown would be measured in increased drug overdoses, depression, alcohol addiction, suicides, heart attacks, economic devastation, job loss and much more.  Joe Biden’s plan is not a solution to the virus, but, rather, it’s a surrender to the virus.” [Politico]

Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, by contrast, has suggested that he is willing to impose further lockdowns if “scientists” tell him to do so. It is unclear which scientists Joe Biden would be listening to, as there is no consensus among scientists and experts as to whether or not lockdowns are worth the staggering costs they impose on the common man.

Revolver News is very proud to present a rigorous study on such an important topic and we hope that this will be spread far and wide both within government and without to assist policymakers. This exclusive study is a collaborative guest contribution to Revolver News. Due to the unfortunately politicized nature of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the associated plausibility of professional repercussions, the authors have chosen for the time being to represent themselves pseudonymously.

Abel Sumner is a Ph.D. candidate in a social sciences field with both private and public sector experience as a policymaker. He is extensively trained in statistics, econometrics, and quantitatively informed public policy.

Jeremiah Jackson holds a Ph.D. in economics and has experience both in the public sector as a policy maker and in the private sector as an analyst.

Jacob Cage holds a Ph.D. in a social sciences field and has extensive experience both in the public and private sectors in policy analysis and strategic communications.

—————————–

CHEAT SHEET: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease

  • Standard approaches to evaluating epidemic policy responses, involving the Value of a Statistical Life, have conceptual problems and are biased towards the elderly and rich.
  • Using a life-years criterion as an alternative shows that the lockdowns cost an order of magnitude more life-years than they saved.
  • Most of the publicized cost-benefit analyses of COVID-19 lockdowns have used coarse measures like lives as units rather than life-years, which misleads politicians and the general public. COVID-19 deaths disproportionately impact the oldest members of the population, whereas the economic impacts of lockdowns disproportionately harm the youngest of the working population, who have far greater life expectancies at the time of impact.
  • Using prior research on workforce entrants and recent graduates entering into a market marred by an economic recession, empirical estimates of life-years lost can be determined. Extensive research on job displacement can be used to estimate the economic impact in life-years of starkly increased unemployment for mid-to-late career workers.
  • Combining these analyses, we found that an estimated 18.7 million life-years will be lost in the United States due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. Comparative data analysis between nations shows that the lockdowns in the United States likely had a minimal effect in saving life-years. Using two different comparison groups, we estimate that the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. saved between a quarter to three quarters of a million life-years.
  • Every broad age category lost life-years from the lockdowns including those 55 and older.
  • The media and state and local governments contributed to the panic by selectively presenting evidence on COVID-19 and shutdowns of dubious benefit.
  • Public health researchers and health economists gave poor policy advice and made selective use of the prior research literature. They will likely be rewarded, not punished, by academia for their failure because of academia’s biases.
  • Public health in general is so biased and vulnerable to motivated cognition that it is not “not yet ready for policy analysis.”

———————————

Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19 as a global pandemic. In the following weeks, the countries of the world began implementing previously unthinkable measures to prevent the spread of the virus. In the United States, some states quickly locked down nearly all physical businesses, venues, and public areas. As a short quarantine rapidly grew into an indefinite lockdown, some lawmakers and economists began asking if the lockdowns would cause more damage than the virus itself. Using empirical research, first-pass estimates can be made about the impact of the unprecedented lockdown in life-years lost. This can then be compared to the number to the estimated life-years lost to COVID-19 in the United States.

Why life-years? It is well-known that socioeconomic status (SES) appears to be linked to life expectancy and some of that association is causal, with higher SESes causing longer life expectancies through a number of channels. Most government policy analysts make decisions using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSLs) — which is about $10 million. If a regulation can save 1 life and costs $9 million, for instance, then it’s worth imposing to save a life. If it costs $11 million, then it’s not worth imposing to save a life. A problem with this approach is how coarse it is. Because SES is linked to life expectancies, actions by the government that do not result in direct loss of life are liable to being simply unaccounted for in this approach. For example, why not set the VSL at $100 million? Or $1? If you set the VSL too low, you will fail to impose many very cheap lifesaving regulations. Something perhaps more subtle is that if you set the VSL too high, then regulations you impose will reduce income so much by retarding economic activity that you will wind up reducing life expectancies through the SES-life expectancy channel. There are actually more fundamental issues with the use of a single VSL for all citizens (see Sunstein’s Valuing Life for a good overview), but many find the general equilibrium problems with it very intuitive.

Surprisingly, the COVID-19 conversation among public health analysts, bio-statisticians, economists, and policymakers who are otherwise sensitive to the problems with VSL has been dominated by the standard “coarse” VSL calculation above. We have seen no full policy analyses utilizing life-year approaches, although various studies have tried to estimate the average life-year losses per COVID-19 death. Controversy over estimating the correct value of a statistical life, problems with actually applying it in analysis as described above, and perhaps a certain odiousness associated with the rendering of human lives in dollar terms have pushed some health economists and public health analysts toward use of a life-years approach. This approach is simple, and in principle, involves no explicit conversion of human lives into money terms — although such a trade-off is implicit in any policy analysis. From the life-years’ perspective, a policymaker can compute the life-years lost and gained if they take a specific action. For instance, a new airline safety regulation may make users of airlines so safe that they save an average of 0.1 life-years per traveler, but the higher cost of air travel may induce potential passengers to switch to less safe car travel, costing the switchers an average of 0.3 life-years. If enough people switch to car travel, then the airline safety regulation will actually reduce the total life-years lived from the perspective of the transportation system as a whole.

A life-year maximizer would say that the regulation should not be adopted. An advantage of the life-year approach is that it values all people’s life-years equally in principle. The life-year of an 80 year old is of equal value to that of a 20 year old. The life-year of a poor person is worth the same as the life-year of a rich person. The VSL method, by incorrectly estimating the amount that heterogenous consumers and workers are willing to pay for safety, may privilege the wealthy (who place a higher premium on safety) and the elderly (who will not have to face the “general equilibrium” costs of more safety regulations) over the poor and the young, who might prefer less safe but much cheaper goods and services or higher paying, but unsafe jobs over lower paying, but safe jobs. With life-years now established as our operational metric, we shall proceed with our analysis of the life-year impacts of Covid lockdown policies.

The COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a massive global recession, which has spared almost no country, firm, or economic sector. Job displacement in America has occurred at a scale nearly rivaling that of the Great Depression in the 1930s, with unemployment as high as 14.7% in April of 2020. Using a back-of-the envelope calculation, we can lower-bound the medium-term increase in unemployment, which can reasonably be estimated at around 8.5%. It is important to note that even medium-term unemployment will result in permanent job separations, as employees who are unemployed for over a year are unlikely to return to their previous position.

Figure 1

Previous research on job displacement and mortality has found that displaced workers face a significant increase in mortality rates, from which lost years of life can be estimated.[1] Job losses and permanent job separations have been shown to correlate directly with increases in heart disease, drug overdoses, lung cancer, and liver disease, among other factors of increased mortality risk. Sullivan and Von Watcher’s paper on job displacement and mortality estimated that job separation results in about 1.5 lost life-years per individual.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that U.S. unemployment in 2021 will range between 8.5% in a single-wave scenario and 11.5% in a double-wave scenario.[2] Assuming that a single-wave scenario occurs, U.S. unemployment next year will increase by about 5 percentage points over pre-COVID-19 2020 levels. Based on pre-COVID-19 payrolls, total job displacements in 2021 will likely be around 8.2 million. Increases in 2020 unemployment by age group between February and July can be used to estimate the distribution of additional unemployment for each age group. Taking the 8.2 million job displacements and multiplying them by Sullivan and Von Watcher’s lost life-year coefficients for each age group provides a total estimate of over 8,000,000 life-years lost due to job displacement.

Beyond direct job displacements, additional research has shown that labor market recessions have significant but lagged effects on the future mortality rates of those entering the labor market.[3] Based on Hannes Schwandt and Till von Wachter’s linear model of increased mortality due to entering the job market during a recession, a figure of 0.629 life-years are lost per individual in this classification.[4] This number can be multiplied by 13 million workers in the 16-24 age group in 2020 and then multiplied separately by the 3.9 million college graduates of 2020.[5] This methodology is also used by Till von Wachter in his working paper on the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis on workers.[6] By these estimates, long-term life-years lost due to the COVID-19 recession in the U.S. total around 18.7 million.

Table 1 contains a breakdown of total life-years lost as a result of economic conditions created by the lockdowns by all estimation methods.

Table 1

Group Estimated life-years lost
2020 Displaced Workers 8,071,000
New Workforce Entrants 8,180,000
Recent Graduates 2,453,000
Total 18,704,000

 

Having established the amount of  life-years lost due to COVID-19 lockdown policies, it remains to consider how many lives these may have saved.

With over 170,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the virus has proven to be a clear public health threat in America. Table 2 (below) contains CDC data for COVID-19 deaths by age group in the United States, and life expectancies of those age groups.

Multiplying the expected years of life remaining by the number of deaths in each age group provides a number for life-years lost by age group. The total calculated life-years lost from COVID-19 in the United States adds up to 1.88 million. It is important to note that this is a high-end estimate. This calculation assumes that those dying from coronavirus have an average life expectancy and would have otherwise likely lived out the remaining years, had they not contracted the virus. Recent medical research has shown that coronavirus deaths are more likely to occur in patients with underlying health conditions. This implies that an estimate of life-years lost due to COVID-19 may be slightly inflated.

Table 2

Age Group US COVID-19 Deaths Expectation of Life Estimated Life-Years Lost
Under 1 year 15 78.61 1,179
1-4 years 10 78.61 786
5-14 years 20 74.14 1,483
15-24 years 225 64.23 14,452
25-34 years 1,074 54.66 58,705
35-44 years 2,728 45.32 123,639
45-54 years 7,298 36.11 263,558
55-64 years 17,583 27.36 480,997
65-74 years 29,869 19.40 579,539
75-84 years 37,494 12.26 459,549
85 years and over 45,842 6.58 301,848
Total 142,158 2,285,735

 

To better contextualize the effect of the lockdown, it is important to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the United States in a scenario where a lockdown was not enacted. While much is still unknown about the virus, data from other countries illustrates the effect of varying degrees of lockdowns.

Sweden faced controversy for not enacting lockdown measures, unlike most other nations. Data from Johns Hopkins University shows that Sweden had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 56.62 per 100,000 people.[7] The United States, with full lockdown measures, had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 50 per 100,000 people [note all data valid up to the time of writing]. The United Kingdom provides yet another perspective, as it initially took an approach closer to Sweden and then changed course during the pandemic, resulting in a COVID-19 death rate of 70 per 100,000 people. An estimate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths had the lockdowns not been enacted can be estimated by using either Sweden’s per-capita death rate or the United Kingdom’s rate as counterfactual estimates of the “least economically costly-possible policy.” For simplicity, we hold the distribution of age at death constant. Figure 2 and Table 3 show these estimates by age group. Table 4 shows differences between counterfactual and actual COVID-19 deaths. For simplicity, we assume that the “age structure of death” in the United States for COVID-19 would have continued to apply and apply a simple multiplier (based on the ratio of per capita deaths in the U.S. and UK/Sweden) to construct our counterfactual estimates.

Figure 2

 

Table 3

Age Group COVID-19 Deaths Estimated Life-years lost
56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k
Under 1 year 17 21 1,336 1,653
1-4 years 11 14 865 1,102
5-14 years 23 28 1,614 1,968
15-24 years 255 315 15,393 19,042
25-34 years 1,216 1,506 61,912 76,664
35-44 years 3,089 3,825 128,574 159,194
45-54 years 8,264 10,232 265,366 328,554
55-64 years 19,910 24,651 480,005 594,314
65-74 years 33,500 41,876 551,204 689,027
75-84 years 42,458 52,567 417,063 516,360
85 years and over 51,911 64,270 207,233 256,573
Total 160,654 199,306 2,130,565 2,644,450

 

Table 4

Age Group Excess COVID-19 Deaths Excess Life-Years Lost
56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k
Under 1 year 2 6 157 474
1-4 years 1 4 865 311
5-14 years 3 8 211 564
15-24 years 30 90 1,811 5,460
25-34 years 142 432 7,230 21,982
35-44 years 361 1,097 15,026 45,646
45-54 years 966 2,934 31,019 94,207
55-64 years 2,327 7,068 56,101 170,410
65-74 years 3,631 12,007 59,744 197,567
75-84 years 4,964 15,073 48,761 148,057
85 years and over 6,069 18,428 24,228 73,568
Total 18,496 57,148 245,153 758,247

 

Based on the estimations in Table 4 (directly above), the U.S. lockdowns may have saved anywhere between a quarter of a million to three quarters of a million life-years. This estimate range is staggeringly low compared to the life-years that will be lost as a result of the lockdown.

Figure 3 (below) shows the breakdown with the Swedish and U.K. models. In the Figure, the blue bars represent life-years saved from the lockdown, which are estimated by comparing the U.S.’s performance with Sweden and the U.K. The red bars represent life-years lost from the lockdown, which are estimated using the estimated reductions in life expectancy from unemployment and separations using U.S. data described above.

 

An intuition policymakers should develop is that that the death of someone aged 20 to 25 will “cost” a little over 50 life-years. Similarly, a permanent employment separation today will “cost” between 0.5 and 1.5 lost life-years, as a small fraction of permanent separations will yield permanently unemployed workers, who have shorter life expectancies in general (think stress-induced increases in cancer, heart attacks, homicide, and deaths of despair [alcohol, suicide, pills]). On the other hand, a typical COVID-19 death will cost between 7 and 17 years — simply because of the age and comorbidity structure of those typically dying already tilts them towards an early death.

A second key assumption, more debatable, is that absent the lockdowns unemployment would not have dramatically increased. Krugman and other economists make the case that the consumption cuts driving unemployment would have happened without the stay-at-home orders based on the experience of contiguous countries e.g. Sweden and Denmark both suffered similar GDP losses. This logic ignores the fact that huge fractions of the Nordics’ collective GDP are linked through trade and so a straightforward difference-in-difference exercise ignores the negative externalities Finnish, Danish, and Norwegian lockdowns imposed on their neighbors. Even if it was not lockdowns causing the consumption cutbacks, mainstream media did little to push back on catastrophe narratives and, through selective coverage, actively misled citizens’ about the actual (small) risks of COVID-19.

The fact of the matter is that once COVID-19 hit, there were going to be economic and life-year losses compared to the world where COVID-19 did not hit. However, the ultimate size of those income and life-year losses, and the geographic and age-allocation of those life-year losses, amount to a policy choice.

Some pedants may quibble that we have constructed our unemployment counterfactual using a time series analysis of U.S. data while we constructed our “no lockdown” COVID-19 life-year losses counterfactual using foreign country experience, effectively mixing two different designs.

We encourage the fair reader to consult the title of this piece. The correct counterfactual is impossible to know. Real results from a country like Sweden or the UK are better than results from an epidemiological model with extremely limited out of sample validity and fundamentally unidentifiable parameters. The point of this quantitative thought experiment is mostly qualitative and aimed at making the single point to citizens and policymakers: small permanent or cohort-level increases in unemployment induced by the lockdowns easily wipe out the small documented benefits of lockdowns.[8] The actual increases in unemployment in the United States are massive — exceeding the scale of the Great Recession. The long-run increase in unemployment cannot easily be constructed from contemporaneous cross-country data for the simple reason that those countries long-run employment evolutions haven’t happened yet, but it is reasonable to assume that COVID-19 has run its course in say, New York or Sweden — which now has around 1-2 COVID-19 deaths per day. Revolver.news would be honored if someone stole these insights for Lancet, which has a quick turnaround (recall their Hydroxychloroquine debacle), the CDC’s in-house journals, or the NBER working paper series on epidemics/COVID-19.

The economic devastation of the lockdowns will last for decades after the virus is brought under control, and it may lead to far worse ripple effects down the road. For the first time in its history, America has experienced what could be almost likened to a sudden stop in an emerging nation — a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.

How did this happen? It is worth reflecting for a moment on the institutional incentives in academia that led to the pandemic pandemonium and the U.S.’s almost assured future fiscal collapse. Our calculations imply that — from a lost life-years’ perspective — the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. objectively caused far more harm than good to every age category. The life year losses are so large that it is difficult to see any kind of refinement justifying the current American policy combination. Indeed, one would need to argue that — without elite panic — a disease only about two to four times as virulent as the flu would have induced a depression, which itself would indict the macrofinancial policymaking community.

Why have the policy trade-offs of COVID-19 never been presented to politicians, the media, or the public in terms of life-years? Why did economists and the public health field as a whole, which popularized linkages between socioeconomic status and life expectancy, suddenly fail to consider these linkages when it came to COVID-19? Why did trade economists ignore the trade spillover impacts of lockdowns when considering COVID-19 policy?

American politicians who enacted these lockdowns were driven by a combination of fear and political incentives. What drove tenured professionals to exaggerate the potential harms of the virus and minimize the costs of lockdowns? Citizens give huge amounts of both money and time to academics with the promise that knowledge can help lead to more rational policymaking. Indeed, a few economists were vocal in warning of the damage of potential lockdowns, but most were either silent or fomented panic. Some economists at the FED and MIT Sloan rushed research to print that actively misled policymakers making life or death decisions

Ridiculously, public health experts encouraged “Black Lives Matter” protests and riots and claimed that they actually reduced COVID-19 infections. Indeed, in the hyper-politicized atmosphere of academia, it is difficult to imagine any “academic” retaining their position who condemned the protests and riots on common-sense public health grounds. On the basis of this asymmetry (and similar asymmetries in the treatment of race and mortality, pollution, sexual minorities, and the role of economic analysis in public health), public health must be condemned as “not yet useful for policy analysis”.

COVID-19 shows that the promise of rational social research is a lie. Politicians and citizens would have been better off following common-sense approaches pursued in past plagues: shutting down borders within the United States and between the United States and other countries, isolating the elderly, and simply wearing a mask.

[1] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/sullivan_vonwachter_qje.pdf

[2] https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate-forecast.htm

[3] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/Unlucky_Midlife_Schwandt_vonWachter.pdf

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates/#:~:text=To%20illustrate%2C%20the%20estimates%20for,the%202015%2D2016%20academic%20year.

[6] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/covid19/LT_effects_STC_memo_vonWachter.pdf

[7] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[8] Because the employment losses primarily affect downscale workers, making less than $50,000/year, remote-working social and policy elites’ do not intuit or feel these downscale workers’ pain, unless enterprising journalists can derive some racial oppression narrative from the employment losses.

Please be aware that although we do not like to censor comments, we reserve the right to remove any that are uncivil, vulgar, or completely off-topic.

86 responses to “Revolver Exclusive Study: COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself”

  1. And to top it off next year we’ll all be ‘mandated’ to get sociopathic Bill Gates mRNA herd culling shots.

    Never.

    • And from 2006 to 2019, this lockdown/ Extreme Social Distancing solution was rejected by scientists at WHO, then Tedros just adds this in 2019. Fauci could not wait to use this.

  2. Going along excellently, until the last sentence….

    “…and simply wearing a mask.”

    Really?

    Care to share your research on that?

    Thanks.

      • If masks do nothing, then why, even before COVID 19, do ALL medical professionals wear them? Why do all surgeons, dentists, even hygienists wear them? Because they don’t work?

        • If those simple surgical type masks are effective against airborne contagions then why don’t people that work in bio-labs wear them?

        • Surgical masks are for bacteria. Those masks do nothing for a virus. It is like trying to stop mosquitoes with a chain link fence.

        • The reason that “why do ALL medical professionals wear them? Why do all surgeons, dentists, even hygienists wear them?” simple TO KEEP SALIVA OUT OF OPEN WOUNDS & SOFT TISSUES. last i saw , NOBODY is walking around with open wounds or their mouths completely held open will passersby work on them, assigning argument, however the CO2 intake levels completely skyrocket with a mask on , osha wouldnt let anyone work in an environment for more than 20 min at a level of 2000-5000 , and forbidden at levels above 5000 , all which happen within minutes of wearing a mask.

          • You people are so funny. You’re trying to prove that masks are not necessary and you state a fact that makes masks necessary.

            Masks are necessary to stop droplets of virus saturated saliva from spreading when people cough, sneeze and talk.

            Conversely, areosolized droplets of virus saturated saliva can float in the air for long periods of time, allowing people to breathe them in and be infected with the virus.

            Maybe that’s too complicated to understand.

        • They do not all wear them. In fact, if you read the pre-COVID literature on the topic, you will see that an increasing number of medical journals and institutions were eliminating the practice. Why? Studies showed three results: masking presented little benefit in some studies, no benefit in others, and actually *increased* the spread of disease in others. Here are a couple of articles from 2010-2010, *before* the issue became politicized:

          From 2015 (note the first source):

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/

          From 2010: Is Routine Use of a Face Mask Necessary in the Operating Room?

          https://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?articleid=2085803

          From 2017:

          https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/9/1589/3858163

          These articles and many more, from objective sources, *before* COVID politicized the issue, answer your question.

        • They wear them to keep from infecting patients during surgeries! Not to prevent the spread of viruses that are considerably smaller than all of the masks everyone wears was designed. Only M95 masks work for viruses but they are also designed for a couple hours of use? NEVER DESIGNED for airborne contamination prevention….

  3. Why was this type of analysis never part of US corona policy considerations from the start? Fauci was locked in on only examining the medical dimension and didn’t consider that the lockdown has real public health costs. That is an astounding failure.

    • No. Fauci was locked in on the political results. He KNEW the model was flawed, he KNEW lockdowns would make it worse, and he KNEW masks wouldn’t change the spread of the virus.

      • Was a law broken the CDC neglected to declare a flu pandemic on Jan 15, 2020 when USA passed the threshold but instead lied to the world to con us into a fake “Pandemic”? Do you believe the $500,000,000.00 the CDC received on Bonds if and only if there was a coronavirus pandemic declared before July 2020?

  4. Excellent work, but you fail to honestly explain that one person – Dr. Anthony Fauci – more than anyone else had the power to push a so-called public health position that narrowly looked at some benefits to the exclusion of other benefits. That resulted in the lock down emphasis. His incredible influence has been criminal and still needs to be eliminated because his other contribution to actual preventable deaths is his refusal, in the face of massive compelling evidence, to allow the early use of hydroxychloroquine together with zinc to keep people out of hospitals. Scores of highly qualified physicians have been trying very hard to get the truth out about this cheap, safe medicine, but still Fauci prevails. If this medicine would be allowed wide use, as it has in some other nations, there would be a massive decrease in Covid-19 cases, deaths and hospitalizations and this would knock out the lock down thinking.

    • It appears that HCQ manufacturers here and in India, source their active ingredients from China.
      Stands to reason that the Chinese had a treatment before they sent infected emissaries to Europe and the Americas. And accounts for their quick recovery.

  5. FBI Spying. Russia HOAX, Impeachment HOAX, and now Corona. They weaponize EVERYTHING and pretend to be altruistic. The Progressive left stops at nothing to try and unseat my president. I Abhor Obama and his ilk. He is a traitor and should be tried for his crimes against our country. Trump is a tragic hero. He is doing for us what no one else would or could.

  6. Masks do nothing positive against virii.

    World Health Organization:
    https://www.who.int/?fbclid=IwAR3QOlTdfeQ-_Bk7J4BlufjdtiwCbAPRouN4w0RH9keurPnGOtiYW4tBiIM
    From the WHO: There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure.14-23 However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.
    Prolonged wearing of the surgical mask causes loss of intellect potential and cognitive performance due to a decrease in blood oxygen and subsequent brain hypoxia. Note – some changes may be irreversible.
    “Report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500410
    “Seventy percent of the patients showed a reduction in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), and 19% developed various degrees of hypoxemia. Wearing an N95 mask significantly reduced the PaO2 level”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340662
    “Wearing N95 masks results in hypooxygenemia and hypercapnia which reduce working efficiency and the ability to make correct decision.”

    CDC
    Outside the health care and medical transport settings, CDC does not recommend the routine use of respirators. Most people who develop SARS become infected through contact with other people who are ill with SARS, not by breathing contaminated air. If a person does contact the SARS virus, it is most likely to be on a surface such as a door knob. The best protection from SARS in public places, (including workplaces other than health care and medical transport settings) is to wash your hands frequently and avoid touching your eyes or nose. [COVID is SARS-CoV-2]

    National Institute of Health
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7277485/?fbclid=IwAR2rTT8kUlkSv_bvQjbFsJoHj8vuMsjm21vd8SeqpCAuy0fsz_IJyKKv8rs

    “No direct evidence indicates that public mask wearing protects either the wearer or others.”

    U Minn
    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data?fbclid=IwAR1lfzfwrFI-CEiy4WPD7ChiPqfBeXAvsalnD7ggpbE2YxOx-3sRjni3HhY COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

    A cloth mask or face covering does very little to prevent the emission or inhalation of small particles. As discussed in an earlier CIDRAP commentary and more recently by Morawska and Milton (2020) in an open letter to WHO signed by 239 scientists, inhalation of small infectious particles is not only biologically plausible, but the epidemiology supports it as an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

    ~~~
    Your face panty does literally nothing.
    Check the package for a NIOSH rating. No rating, no protection against ANYTHING.

  7. What an absolute bonkers “study”. Especially the comparison to Sweden is selective at best and misleading at worst. Shame on you for calling this anything close to a deliberate attempt at science.

    • Hi Iowa Steve,

      What is disingenuous about comparing US to Sweden? In particular, I’ve compared Sweden to NY state, since both have a couple of large, densely-populated cities and all the rest rural, very sparsely populated. They seem a very good comparison pair. And the fact that NY’s super-tight, still-ongoing lockdown and mask mandate has resulted in about 3 times the per capita death rate of Sweden, which was very loosely locked-down with no masks, seems highly relevant.

      • Bonkers was actually his head exploding because facts were involved. lol. Arent liberals fun to play with. Who needs a dog? Now you can just find a liberal that you have to train to poop in the yard. The difference is the liberal can let himself out. Feed veggie based dog food, maybe a cat box if the yard is too far away.

        • This is not entirely accurate. Liberal heads do not “explode”, a closed space under vacuum must ” implode”! Aside from that, I agree wholeheartedly.

    • Iowa Steve – Nice try, but it’s difficult to get through a wall created by motivated reasoning. You’re right about the study. But if I am looking for evidence to support the conclusion I already have, this “bonkers” study serves well. The echos in this thread are a sonic treat.

  8. These are the most lame academic bios I have ever read– a study by people with PhDs in “social sciences” from unnamed universities with lots of experience in unnamed organizations. Maybe they are just humble? Or maybe they are not actually credible experts.

    • The study specifically mentions that, sadly, they are protecting their identities, for fear of political backlash, ie, cancellation, for disagreeing with the accepted Leftist narrative, which is the only acceptable narrative in academic institutions today. And that is also the reason we have all been forced to suffer through this nightmare which will affect our world for generations to come.

  9. Domain created three months ago. Has the technical acumen that makes it appear to be a single guy in his basement.

    “Study” that is “researched” by anonymous “researchers” (e.g. guy in his own basement). This nonsense fiction puts you under enormous criminal and civil threat, dear friend. You can’t just make up ******** because you can find some stupid ******** (like DJT) that will share it.

    • The entire world was locked down based on the work of a flunky English epidemiologist who had never been right about anything in his life. And who was further caught breaking his own recommended rules during the lockdown. How is this analysis any more or less plausible than his?

  10. Lets hope that the number of Americans that see and comprehend this report reaches critical mass to crush the progressive agenda to destroy America.

  11. The consequence of not shutting down when there were not known treatments, PPE’s and medication not available, the consequence to medical and first responders without the shut down, there was no easy choice. Has anyone made projects of the deaths and who would have died if an attempt of business as usual was endanger anyway.

    • Covid is a hoax… Get over it! Want to stay home in your diapers while sitting in a tub full of chili, eating cornpops from your belly button, or having your mommy feed them to you? Then, you do that, as this is a free country. Now, the rest of us who know this is a government scam to get us to vote from home will live life and show your woman how to do the same while her cuck boyfriend is afraid of a cold thats less dangerous than the flu!. <<– OOOPSIE Secrets out!

  12. This does not shock me. Its actually expected. The clear majority of the executive Branch is run by career Senior Executive Services civilians. The majority are socialists. All of them Saul Alinksi disciples. They are the Democrats insurance against Trump, that the FBI used to talk about. They are desperate for mail in voting so after election day when all the in person ballots are counted, they will tell their goons how many votes they need, and where, to win the election. Here in Jacksonville Florida, Democrat Al Lawson had people out collecting ballots during the Primary. I did not know ballot harvesting was legal in Florida. They did it on election day! Why? All votes have to be submitted by election day! Most people wouldn’t return them on time. So Democrats via supposedly unconnected groups, sends their goons to each democrat voters address asking the if they returned their absentee ballot (not vote by mail). If they haven’t then the group will help them fill it out and then turn it in for them. And that’s the scam. Oh not to mention democrat mailmen or republican mailman could throw away ballots in areas that dont benefit their beliefs.

    • As for protective measures, I would have stopped at sheltering the elderly and sick.

      A global economic shutdown is globally destabilizing and destructive at all local levels.

      The current experiment should not be repeated for an infectious disease.

  13. While a lockdown should only be a last resort, it seems this study is fundamentally flawed and there is no data input regarding time lost from work for those who will become sick or exposed, and no data regarding the “long haulers” currently being reported as up to 35% of those who contacted Covid who have very long term symptom which are often debilitating, causing massive loss of work and income.

  14. Interesting study and holistic perspective whether you’re PHDs or college frosh with time on your hands ro create this report! To naysayers, any mask provides more than zero protection, spreading or receiving. AF provided medical perspective as well as he and most any other could. His was only one perspective. I believe we should have stuck with original objective, to slow the curve enough for resources available to manage care. Great effort, didn’t get there at initial explosion, but with added med resources in US, objective met end of NY hit.

  15. This is an outstanding study, Revolver! And, it was heartening to see Tucker Carlson mention your site again on his show. This study’s hands down reveals the true nature of this lockdown. The decision for this draconian shutdown of our society was not to somehow keep America “safe”. The motive was to destroy America by decimating its middle class and replacing President Trump with a Marxist dictatorship.
    This shutdown was the attempted first nail in America’s coffin. It essentially tried to lay waste our economic stability. The second nail was the convenient death of George Floyd which was a gift from the Devil to the American Left who seized that moment to create chaos and destruction of many American cities.
    Through this anarchy, they hope to seize power and destroy our entire nation.
    Locking down America was essentially the same as imprisoning 300 plus million Americans and is the first stage of enslavement.

  16. This is rather long, so please bear with me:

    1) For those who doubt the results based on the anonymity of the authors: Try doing the study yourself and see what conclusions you reach.

    2) The real problem with Covid-19 is that there are very different levels of consequences for having the virus: Some people die, some get seriously ill, some have mild symptoms, and some have no symptoms at all. No effort has gone into finding numbers for the less-seriously sickened victims of the virus with the result that no-one actually knows what the real medical impact of this virus has been. What we know is the most serious tip of this iceberg.

    Yes, there have been some 180,000 deaths, and some 6 million people have been diagnosed in the US, but the significance of this depends entirely on whether the mild and asymptomatic numbers are small, or large. If there are 100 million people who have contracted the virus, its mortality is much lower than if only the 6 million have because the other 94 million are basically without symptoms. We don’t close down the economy for the common cold or the flu even though people die from the flu. And what if the number of people in the US who have contracted the virus is over 200 million?

    A second consequence of not pursuing the milder cases is that there is no credible way to figure out how a virus spreads if you don’t know who has contracted it. That includes not knowing when the earliest cases appeared or how long the actual incubation period is: we’ve been told 2-14 days, but it may be much longer. You can’t do contact tracing if you don’t know whose contacts need to be traced. You can’t make intelligent decisions about re-opening if you don’t know what the actual status of the pandemic is. I’ve made these points in letters to Dr. Fauci and others and haven’t received even the courtesy of a reply.

    Much of this reflects the “business as usual” approach taken by the health care elements of the “Permanent Government,” the real basis for the notion of the “deep state.” See my recent article:
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/no_need_for_a_conspiracy_theory.html
    Medical personnel have done a great job handling the medical dimensions of this situation, but for them, the real issue was whether there would be sufficient resources to cope with the pandemic at its peak; lock-downs were one way to ensure that there would be. But health care bureaucrats only concern themselves with health care issues; for them there is no trade off with anything, economic or otherwise.

    So far, the health care system has managed to cope, and with new cases requiring hospitalization going down, the rationale for the lock-downs is evaporating. We keep hearing about a “second wave” because this is necessary to maintain the rationale for lock-downs. If relatively few people have contracted the virus, then this “second wave” is possible; if more than 100 million have, it is rather doubtful. That’s another reason to figure out how many people have had the virus asymptomatically, but determining that this number is large would undercut the “second wave” theory, and thus provides a reason for the health care bureaucracy to avoid determining this number. If there is no “second wave” this fall and winter, that bureaucracy will have a lot to answer for. And if another 100 million contract the virus asymptomatically, so what?

    There are also some minor issues to consider that point to the role of the media in creating this mess:
    The impact on the US was magnified by NY Gov. Cuomo’s decision to move people with the virus into nursing homes. Since elderly people are more susceptible, this guaranteed an increase in deaths.
    NYC’s Mayor de Blasio’s invitation for people to come into Manhattan for the Chinese New Year magnified the role of the NY subways in spreading the virus because that would have spread the disease to anyone using them, including people coming from around the country as well as from elsewhere in the world. These details were mentioned in passing at the time, but are basically forgotten today.

    • You’re ignoring the fact that this virus has become the #3 killer of americans in 2020 and the flu isn’t top 5. Plus it is only September.

      This has killed more people in the last 2 weeks than the average deaths during the 1918 pandemic.

    • I generally agree with the article and also with your comments, BUT, the the probability that 100 million or more American residents have had the Covid19 virus is very remote. The factor you don’t mention is the possibility that up to 50% of Americans have T-cell immunity from exposures to previous variants of coronavirus as has been estimated from blood samples drawn from years ago. I am a retired statistician (former head of engineering of a major airline) and have been maintaining a data base of the flow of the disease since March and found that there were 4 patterns to the spread of the disease: Pacific, SunBelt, SnowBelt, and Acela Corridor states.
      The Pacific states (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) are moderate temperature states that need little A/C nor winter heat (ex AK) and had early initiation of the disease, locked down tightly which slowed but did not stop the disease and they have had continuous growth with recent spikes.
      The Sunbelt states (southern 2 tiers of states ex UT & CO which because of elevation are cold so put in SnowBelt) had very low levels in March/April/May and have taken off in the summer once A/C started in late May with cases quadrupling from their April Peaks.
      The SnowBelt States (all north of NC/TN/OK line+CO, UT) except Acela served states (MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC) were the opposite with the major outbreak occurring in the heating season of March / April and cases dropped off to half that in May and early June then came back to the same level (but much milder cases) in the heat of the summer when A/C use is prevalent, even in northern states.
      The Acela States that bore the brunt of the pandemic in March/April behaved the same as the SnowBelt states with the exception that once they came down from the peak at the beginning of June they stayed absolutely flat all the way through the Air conditioning season which hints that they are at the onset of herd immunity.
      The anti-body testing done and published with great fanfare by NY Gov Cuomo in mid-April showed that Downstate NY had about 14-15% antibodies and that was with about half the cases to date, so it is reasonable to assume that downstate had about 30% of the population have the disease so far, NJ is probably about the same although I haven’t seen the data. The other Acela states were hit about half as hard so they are probably at about 15-20% who have had the disease.
      Exposure to Covid-19 alone does not seem to come close to provide even the beginning of herd immunity but if there is immunity through t-cells as suggested by several studies, then the whole of the Acela corridor region is in the 60-70% range of low end herd immunity and that is a real possibility. The fact that other Northern States showed a nearly 3X increase (from 39 per 100K to 110 per 100K residents) from the mid-June low to the late July peak while the Acela states, with near identical climate to the other northern states, stayed absolutely flat hints that herd immunity is close.
      Other regions are probably 10% below the range of the Acela corridor, but if we start out with 50-60% in the other regions, we will likely have a second spike that will be similar to what happened this summer, then the whole country will have reached herd immunity and the Pandemic will end early in 2021.
      This outcome is not certain, but is certainly in the highly possible range.

  17. Are you kidding me? This is statistical b*******.

    The amount of suffering from a single death can set off a chain of suicides that outweigh the 6 month partial lockdown.

  18. Facts don’t help terrorized, traumatized, people whos horror induced altered brain chemistry has developed into delusional beliefs that are exacerbated by hypoxia and toxic C02 levels. Life is so much more than subsistent survival.
    Boot yourself out of your house, take off the damn mask and live life for God sake.

  19. 🇺🇸💔
    🙏🏻💙🙏🏻💜🙏🏻💙🙏🏻💜🙏🏻
    These LOCKDOWNS are CAUSING WAY MORE DEATHS than COVID!!!
    #suicideprevention #stoptheviolence
    #stopaddiction
    #backtheblue
    #SUPPORTOURTROOPS #Fundthepolice.

  20. There were probably deaths from car accidents, other accidents, and various crimes, that didn’t happen because of the lockdowns. Was the avoidance of those deaths taken into account in this study? Were the ramifications of detrimental effects on education in all grades through post-secondary ed taken into account? And on a lighter note, was the possibility of a baby-boom (nothing to do locked up in with the house all day with one’s beloved, LOL) or baby-bust (we can’t afford another kid) taken into account?

    • We looked into secondary effects (reduced car accidents etc.) and we’re waiting until the whole year’s data is available before we assemble a “final” analysis.

      The consensus seems to be that COVID-19 will, if anything, reduce total births but this is another case where it is much easier to see if “time will tell”.

  21. Anyone else get the feeling that the Democrats have warehouses full of ballots filled out and ready to go?? After all, they are trying to create the narrative that due to the CCP virus, people are turning on Trump. The Secret Service should be on the hunt for these ballots NOW.

  22. Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that what they’re saying is that 25 million people are somehow affected by the response to the virus with a total loss of 18.7 million “life-years” attributable to the “lockdowns.” Doing the math, that’s 0.7 “life-years” per person — or 8 months. Are they really saying in this “rigorous study” that 25 million people will live to be 84 instead of 85 and that estimate somehow makes lockdowns “more deadly” than the 180,000+ deaths so far?

    • It is true that the effects per person are small because some people will re-enter the job market without issue.

      In general, these per small average effects reflect considerable heterogeneity. Some people will die much earlier “deaths of despair” in their early 40s and 50s because they never got on the first step of the career ladder and will have resume gaps that make it hard for them to ever recover. For others, the damage of being temporarily unemployed will be completely reversible and simply not visible in the data.

      We are using an average value to estimate how many will life-years will be lost with the understanding that it obscures considerable variation in eventual death. We have also abstracted away from likely scarring effects in the education systems and other costs of the lock downs (as well as some potential benefits, like less driving).

      • Then the headline that the lockdowns are “10 times more deadly than the pandemic” is incorrect. If the “lockdowns” eventually take an average of 8 months off the lives of 25 million people and the pandemic actually ends the lives of several hundred thousand people this year or next, it’s kinda hard to make that jump to lockdowns being 10 times more deadly.

        • I disagree. Deteriorating economic conditions will predictably lead to more deaths in a given year than would have otherwise have occurred.

          In the same way that we might say economic sanctions on foreign countries are deadly and attribute deaths to those economic actions, we can say that the lock-downs are deadly. This is a standard use of the term “deadly” and you can simply Google “deadly sanctions” to see that it is not original to our team.

          • But you didn’t say that there would be more deaths due to crappy economic times, and that’s not the case anyway, is it? What you concluded was that the impact on 25 million people would be to shorten their lives by an average of 8 months. That conclusion in no way confirms the headline that lockdowns are “10 times more deadly” than the virus.

            Certainly, you cannot equate “lockdowns” with the US imposing economic sanctions on countries which would make those countries incapable of providing healthcare and food to their people. That is definitely not the case in the US. Hospitals are still open and treating patients, and the federal government is providing financial support — so far — to help people adversely affected.

            • The mechanisms through which reduced unemployment leads to early death are not so obviously limited only to different consumption trajectories. They additionally include increased drug use, participation in crime, stress, family and community collapse, and reduced neighborhood social control (William Julius Wilson covers these and more in “When Work Disappears”).

              As the end of the day, I think the linear model relating unemployment and lost life-years is the best approach for a first-approximation, but I acknowledge that (unsustainable!) government spending and consumption support *in theory could have* have cushioned the blow. I am a little skeptical of this because we are ALREADY seeing rising murders, suicides, and the observable consequences reduced neighborhood social control in the form of nationwide riots this summer. All of these phenomena are linked to unemployment.

              Similarly, economic sanctions themselves do not always (or even mostly) kill through outright starvation, but just as often through the aforementioned channels as well as malnutrition, which leaves one vulnerable to neoplasms, viruses, and disease in general as well as natural disasters.

  23. Don’t forget to add in the impact of education effectively being withheld from many.

    Remote learning is the same as no school for many students. Lack of education leads to poorer life outcomes.

  24. The radical left wing terrorists of the DNC have no problem with killing as many Americans as possible if it means getting rid of our great President.

  25. Do masks protect the person wearing the mask? How can it keep saliva/ droplets from exiting but not entering? I admit I’m totally lost on this.

  26. Last year, the British Government was spraying CHEMTRAILS at very high altitudes, on a clear sunny day, for more than 4 hours, criss-crossing the skies from early morning till 0900am.

    Now study the Chemtrails and you would find the COVID 19, so intelligent that knows How to Vanish during riots/public demonstrations for its own safety

    Governments who are run by Khazarian Zionists have been embarked upon a program of Human Culling, better known as Depopulation.

  27. The Canadian LameStream Media ceaselessly foment Fear, promoting only hygiene and social isolation, never offering Hope nor suggestions for Preparation or Treatment. Politicians and Medical Officers of Health, at all levels, do likewise – Why is nobody Leading? Thinking? Why?

    More to the point, what can YOU actually do, personally, to prevent or survive COVID-19? Besides updating your Will, and strengthening your resolve to Be Well, consume Vitamins A+D+K2, as well as B complex, C, and E. Multi-minerals and many herbs help too. Remove from your diet what is bad for you – e.g. glyphosate residues of Roundup etc, most/all grains, some vegs and fruits, vegetable oils, and factory-farmed meat. Increase good water, plants that are healthy for you, traditional oils and fats, and use specific digestive enzymes to deal with proteins from cross contamination or GMOs that were fed to any meat or farmed fish or fast foods that you eat.

    In Canada, treatment with Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromax + Zinc is forbidden by fiat (not strictly by any Act of Parliament or by any Law). This means that any MD, or Pharmacist, or Nurse who disobeys can lose their licence. However, I’m told that some other combinations are almost as effective. Also, large doses of oral Vitamin C, or high-dose intravenous Vitamin C, or IV Ozonated water, and even certain anti-viral herbs, oils and homeopathics can be very effective, when used at home or as an outpatient.

    Avoid going into hospital, because Doctors there generally are only allowed to offer the ‘Standard of Care’, which is often inadequate. Not to mention the unhealthy food 🙁

    You can also consult Naturopaths, Herbalists, Homeopaths, Acupuncturists, and Energy Healers if you want a full range of treatment options – they are all accustomed to dealing with all manner of viruses, bacteria, parasites, injuries, emotions, etc in helping your body and soul to recover their health.

    Our Governments and Media have been trampling our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms with no end in sight, by imposing draconian dictates and punishments to force us into incognito masked lockdowns to await the ‘Saviour Vaccine’ (it will be compulsory, of course). To Express our Power, we can support websites such as this (revolver.news), and Sarah Westall, and GreenMedInfo.com, QuestioningCovid.com, and ChildrensHealthDefense.org. Here in Canada, VaccineChoiceCanada.com has filed a Class Action Lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court, against the Canadian, Ontario and Toronto governments, as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and several other defendants.

    Oh, yes … All is Not lost … Do have Hope, let the Universe know what you need, and express Gratitude for every blessing and for every ‘coincidence’ you receive !

    Namaste

  28. This was excellent! Thank you so much for assembling this important data. We must work diligently to prevent these extreme measures from ever happening again.

  29. QU’EST-CE QU’UN VIRUS ? QUEL EST SON RÔLE ?

    Un micro-organisme ou microbe (du grec, « petite vie ») est un organisme vivant, invisible à l’œil nu, qui ne peut être observé qu’à l’aide d’un microscope.
    Les bactéries et les virus sont des microbes. Ils jouent un rôle essentiel dans presque tous les
    écosystèmes. Les plantes, les animaux et les humains en bonne santé abritent une impressionnante diversité de microbes (microbiote des végétaux, microbiote intestinal, cutané, etc.). Les microbes auraient été les premières formes de vie sur Terre il y a environ 3,4 à 3,7 milliards d’années. Les plus petits microbes sont les virus. Leur taille se mesure en millionième de millimètre (1 million de fois plus petit qu’un millimètre). La taille moyenne d’un coronavirus est de 20 nanomètres (= 20 millionièmes de mm = 2 centièmes de microns). Les lumières (espaces) entre les mailles des masques font 3 microns de côté. Il peut donc passer 150 coronavirus côte à côte. Au carré, nous arrivons à 22 500 virus par maille. En multipliant par le nombre de mailles, nous arrivons à des millions de virus pouvant passer simultanément.

    Les microbes sont partout :
    Nombre dans notre intestin : 100 000 milliards
    Nombre dans 1 ml de salive : 750 millions
    Nombre dans 1 m³ d’air aux Champs-Élysées : 88 000

    Il est impossible de leur barrer la route et nous n’avons pas intérêt à nous en débarrasser.
    Nous sommes une usine ambulante de micro-organismes qui sont aussi nombreux que nos quelques milliards de cellules et même plus, ceci représentant un poids de 4 à 5 kg par individu de petits ouvriers amis collaborant 24 h sur 24 à notre survie.
    Les virus sont des agents qui viennent créer une réaction dans notre corps pour que celui-ci
    active l’énergie vitale et se nettoie.

    Quand nos batteries sont chargées, nous pouvons utiliser notre énergie vitale pour marcher, courir,
    sauter, penser, avoir une émotion, digérer, fabriquer des enzymes digestives, éliminer toxines et déchets, régénérer notre corps, réparer un organe abîmé.
    Quand un virus se présente, notre corps décide, si besoin, de s’en servir pour une opération de
    nettoyage. Le nettoyage ne peut se faire qu’avec l’énergie vitale de notre corps, car le virus est dépourvu d’énergie. De fait, sur un corps mort, un virus ne peut pas agir.
    Le virus est la clé qui vient activer l’énergie vitale du corps pour un travail de nettoyage
    spécifique.

    « Le terrain est tout, le microbe n’est rien », Claude Bernard, fondateur de la médecine expérimentale.

    L’ÉNERGIE VITALE
    L’accumulation d’énergie vitale découle de 3 repos :
    1) Le repos physique – En position allongée, notre corps accumule de l’énergie vitale.
    2) Le repos mental – Dans le silence et en l’absence de stimulations visuelles et auditives, quand on parvient à
    faire le vide mental, notre corps accumule de l’énergie vitale.
    3) Le repos digestif – Quand nos organes digestifs n’ont pas besoin de dépenser de l’énergie pour digérer, notre corps accumule de l’énergie vitale.
    Seuls l’oxygène, le soleil, l’activité physique, une nourriture saine, les interactions sociales permettent la santé véritable, contrairement à la peur, aux masques et aux vaccins.

    COMMENT ÇA FONCTIONNE
    Le virus est dans l’air. L’individu l’attrape. Le virus-outil cible le mucus d’une toxémie spécifique pour provoquer les symptômes qui permettront de l’éliminer.
    Au contact du virus-outil, le corps peut utiliser l’énergie vitale
    pour créer une irritation de la gorge. La sécheresse de la gorge nous oblige à tousser. Plus on toussera, plus la toux sera forte, plus vite se décollera le mucus dans les bronches. Le mucus sera éliminé une fois la toux sèche transformée en toux grasse (crachats, glaires).
    pour faire monter la température du corps. La fièvre est un mécanisme naturel de défense. Certaines toxines ne supportant pas un certain niveau de température, le corps augmente sa température jusqu’à ce que ces toxines soient éliminées. En limitant la fièvre, nous empêchons notre corps de guérir.
    pour produire une combustion des toxines, une inflammation. C’est la tentative par le corps de se guérir.

    Dans les poumons, les toxines et le mucus encombrent les voies respiratoires. À un moment donné, le corps a besoin de se nettoyer, de dégager les mucus accumulés. C’est ce qui se passe en cas de rhume : toux, crachats, éternuements, nez qui coule indiquent que le mucus quitte le corps. Les toxines sont éliminées. Aujourd’hui, nos corps sont très fortement pollués. Avec nos vies modernes, nos corps ont tendance à accumuler énormément de toxines, de déchets, de mucosités, de cristaux. Les nombreuses toxines qui encombrent notre organisme, qui encrassent nos organes et nos tissus, vont entraîner des symptômes, des pathologies.
    Dans le cas du coronavirus, celui-ci se concentre sur les poumons, va agir sur les poumons, irriter les poumons pour faire tousser et cracher, pour que les poumons surchargés de mucus puissent dégager ce dernier.
    L’accumulation de mucus est le résultat de nos modes de vie modernes, des pollutions, de la consommation de produits raffinés et transformés, très riches en amidon (pain, pâtes, riz) et en protéines d’origine animale qui amènent des déchets acides et des cristaux, de la consommation de produits chimiques (par le biais de l’eau, d’aliments non naturels, de médicaments).

    Pourquoi des personnes meurent-elles ? Pourquoi la force vitale n’est-elle pas capable d’utiliser le virus-outil ?
    Quand il n’y a pas suffisamment d’énergie vitale et trop de toxines, le virus ne peut pas agir et nettoyer le corps. En l’absence des 3 repos (physique, mental, digestif), le corps n’a pas reconstitué le stock d’énergie vitale qui est essentiel au bon fonctionnement du système immunitaire qui permet de le protéger. Quand la maladie apparaît, le corps n’est plus capable de gérer les symptômes. La maladie prend le dessus, devient dégénérative et fatale.

    Sources : Julien Allaire, naturopathe / Wikipedia / futura-sciences.com / doctissimo.fr / micheldogna.fr

  30. WHAT IS A VIRUS? WHAT IS HIS ROLE ?

    A microorganism or microbe (from the Greek, “little life”) is a living organism, invisible to the naked eye, which can only be observed under a microscope.
    Bacteria and viruses are microbes. They play an essential role in almost all ecosystems. Healthy plants, animals and humans are home to an impressive diversity of microbes (plant microbiota, intestinal, skin microbiota, etc.). Microbes would have been the first forms of life on Earth around 3.4 to 3.7 billion years ago. The smallest microbes are viruses. Their size is measured in millionths of a millimeter (1 million times smaller than a millimeter). The average size of a coronavirus is 20 nanometers (= 20 millionths of a mm = 2 hundredths of a micron). The lights (spaces) between the mesh of the masks are 3 microns per side. It can therefore pass 150 coronaviruses side by side. Squared, we arrive at 22,500 viruses per mesh. By multiplying by the number of meshes, we arrive at millions of viruses that can pass simultaneously.

    Germs are everywhere:
    Number in our gut: 100,000 billion
    Number in 1 ml of saliva: 750 million
    Number in 1 m³ of air at the Champs-Élysées: 88,000

    There is no way they can stand in the way and we have no interest in getting rid of them.
    We are a walking factory of microorganisms which are as numerous as our several billion cells and even more, this representing a weight of 4 to 5 kg per individual of small friendly workers collaborating 24 hours a day for our survival.

    Viruses are agents that create a reaction in our body so that it
    activates vital energy and cleanses itself.

    When our batteries are charged, we can use our vital energy to walk, run,
    jump, think, have an emotion, digest, manufacture digestive enzymes, eliminate toxins and waste, regenerate our body, repair a damaged organ.
    When a virus presents itself, our body decides, if necessary, to use it for an operation of
    cleaning. Cleaning can only be done with the vital energy of our body, because the virus is devoid of energy. In fact, on a dead body, a virus cannot act.
    The virus is the key that activates the body’s vital energy for cleaning work
    specific.

    “The ground is everything, the microbe is nothing”, Claude Bernard, founder of experimental medicine.

    VITAL ENERGY
    The accumulation of vital energy results from 3 rests:
    1) Physical rest – While lying down, our body accumulates vital energy.
    2) Mental rest – In silence and in the absence of visual and auditory stimulation, when we are able to
    to clear the mind, our body accumulates vital energy.
    3) Digestive rest – When our digestive organs do not need to expend energy to digest, our body accumulates vital energy.
    Only oxygen, sun, physical activity, healthy food, social interactions enable true health, unlike fear, masks and vaccines.

    HOW IT WORKS
    The virus is in the air. The individual catches it. The tool virus targets the mucus of a specific toxemia to cause symptoms that will clear it.
    In contact with the virus-tool, the body can use vital energy
    to create throat irritation. The dry throat makes us cough. The more we cough, the stronger the cough, the faster the mucus in the bronchi will loosen. The mucus will be eliminated once the dry cough turns into a fatty cough (sputum, phlegm).
    to raise the body temperature. Fever is a natural defense mechanism. Because some toxins cannot withstand a certain level of temperature, the body increases its temperature until these toxins are eliminated. By limiting the fever, we prevent our body from healing.
    to produce combustion of toxins, inflammation. It is the body’s attempt to heal itself.

    In the lungs, toxins and mucus clog the airways. At some point, the body needs to cleanse itself, to release the accumulated mucus. This is what happens with a cold: coughing, spitting up, sneezing, a runny nose indicate that the mucus is leaving the body. The toxins are eliminated. Today our bodies are very heavily polluted. With our modern lives, our bodies tend to accumulate a lot of toxins, waste, phlegm, crystals. The many toxins which clutter our body, which clog our organs and our tissues, will lead to symptoms and pathologies.
    In the case of the coronavirus, it concentrates on the lungs, will act on the lungs, irritate the lungs to cause coughing and spitting, so that the lungs overloaded with mucus can release the latter.
    The accumulation of mucus is the result of our modern lifestyles, pollution, consumption of
    refined and processed products, very rich in starch (bread, pasta, rice) and animal proteins which
    bring acidic waste and crystals, consumption of chemicals (through water,
    unnatural foods, medicines).

    Why are people dying? Why is the life force not able to use the virus tool?
    When there is not enough vital energy and too many toxins, the virus cannot work and cleanse the body. In the absence of the 3 rests (physical, mental, digestive), the body has not reconstituted the stock of vital energy which is essential for the proper functioning of the immune system which allows it to be protected. When the disease appears, the the body is no longer able to manage the symptoms. The disease takes over, becomes degenerative and fatal.

  31. President Trump originally wanted to open up on Easter Sunday. Because of Dr. Fauci‘s recommendations he extended that until May 1. Once they knew that it affected mostly the elderly And that hydroxy/Z pack/zinc was curing people and keeping people from getting the virus there really was no need to keep the country close down. Once Fauci and the CDC/WHO Took over it was about making the president lose the election.

  32. California – Action Taken in Response to Government Overreach

    Given the recent unconstitutional actions our State government has taken in response to COVID-19, CalAlimonyReform.org has decided to sponsor a new ballot initiative.

    Here is the title and summary of the initiative draft submitted to the California State Attorney General’s Office:

    Title: Limit Government Authority During a Health Crisis – Initiative Statute

    Summary: The intent of this initiative measure is to limit the government’s role to an advisory capacity during any health crisis. Allows the government to issue public service announcements and/or health advisories. Does not allow the government to issue any executive orders that impact any private businesses, public beaches, state parks or personal freedoms.

    We must continue to keep our government in-check and remind our elected officials that we are a country of laws and not orders. The founding fathers intended the government to be subordinate to the people, yet as we know many of our elected officials thrive on power.

    While this initiative measure is somewhat out of scope from our stated mission, it does drive awareness of our organization and helps to protect our personal freedoms.

    We believe the government has clearly overstepped its constitutional authority when it tells us how to spend our money (i.e. Obamacare and alimony), force the shutdown of private businesses or mandate how we dress (masks).

    It is not our government’s role to manage risks for we the people.

    Source – http://www.calalimonyreform.org/news.html

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this site you agree to our use of cookies.

Okay