When the establishment says: "How could we have known imposing NPIs would cause damage?"--Check your archives.
I recently went to cancel my plan on a small writing platform I’d experimented with in 2020, and then abandoned.
Sifting through the orphans there, I found a piece written in November, 2020. In it, I referred to the pandemic “control” policies as causing “blunt force trauma” to the general public, and made the case they didn’t make things any better health-wise for the susceptible. In 2020 and beyond, many other people wrote exponentially more insightful, data-sophisticated, clarifying pieces, or gave interviews, or both, describing the likelihood that “NPIs” (non-pharmaceutical interventions) represented more risk than benefit in the face of SARS-CoV2. (Just a smattering: Sunetra Gupta, Nick Hudson, Charles Eisenstein, Iain Davis, Gato Malo, Kurt Wittchowski, Jeffrey Tucker, John Ioannidis)
Nonetheless, here in July of 2022, public figures and media sources seem to be gearing up for an all-expenses-paid “We couldn’t have known” cruise.
“New data suggest that the damage has been worse than almost anyone expected.”
Never mind the aforementioned available analysis. (I mean someone noticed it was there, given the number of these authors censored and removed from platforms for their troubles.)
Never mind that a working paper containing a meta-analysis of the impact of these NPIs was out 6 months ago in January of 2022, and showed them to be next to useless in terms of reducing Covid mortality. See this write-up of its findings from the Brownstone Institute…
Never mind that this new paper details the devastating cost of aggressive “anti-Covid” measures.
Never mind the personal accounts of the negative economic, social, educational, physical and mental health impacts…
Despite aaaaaaalllllllll that: ”But nobody knew it would turn out like this” is likely to become rife in personal as well as public conversations in the coming months and years. Which brings me back to the orphaned nothing of a piece on the abandoned writing platform.
As I scanned back over the record of my 2020 thoughts, with my finger on the delete key, I felt a redux of the surprised dismay and hurt I experienced back in 2020 when dearly loved family members and friends aborted e-mail exchanges and phone calls rather than hear about evidence or analysis which differed in any way from the avalanche of nudge propaganda sludge shooting out of every mainstream media orifice in the English-speaking world. Later it became clear, as we dissenters found one another, that this was a common experience.
It didn’t matter how much calmness we mustered. In fact, calmness and invitations for rational examination of the evidence for claims about “is” and “ought” often seemed to cause an opposite and inverse reaction in the fearful, and/or the narratively committed — one of tightened voice boxes, contorted faces, and so…much…anger. We were accused of callousness, selfishness, and arrogance in the face of expertness. Often by those with whom we had enjoyed deep intimacy. Searing stuff!
So, definitely, check your archives. As the world catches up to what you saw or hypothesized about early on, keep those testaments handy. Not to fuel more anger. Not to revel in “I told you so", but to remind yourself of what loved ones who will eventually come to acknowledge that the lockdown measures did not “save lives” and did exact damage, may not ever bother to say: You who dissented? You were not callous. Or selfish. Or arrogant. You were thinking for yourself. About others as well as yourselves. You were describing what you saw. If your loved ones can’t say those things, your testaments always will. And maybe that can be enough.
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE DISEASE NOW CALLED COVID IS NOT CONTAGIOUS.
So why has our societal response been designed as if it was?
By Jen Downey
November 20, 2020
Published Nowhere
So why has our societal response been designed as if it was?
The fear stoked by the "Coronavirus Pandemic" has led to empowerment of the public health bureaucracy to dictate that massive social, political, and economic violence be done to societies around the globe in the name of "biosecurity" and "saving lives". Much of the public has accepted this abuse, not seeing the naked emperor strutting about within the claim of necessity.
Those advocating for coercive control of human behavior have gotten great propaganda mileage out of painting the CENTRAL RISK to all individuals and thus society, as contact with a SARS-CoV2 infected individual. By casting "infection" as the great risk factor for death, the arguments made by the public health bureaucracy and their apologists for measures designed to "stop" transmission have been made to look sensible. "Caring" has been successfully defined for many as "submitting to draconian measures because only by "ending transmission" can lives be saved.
But is contact with an infected individual the decisive driver of subsequent SARS-related morbidity and mortality?
The best data now says that 99.74% of all those exposed to SARS-CoV2 survive it. Many never know they "had" it. https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
.The data also tells us that those SARS-CoV2 morbidity and mortality are hugely asymmetric. The vast majority of poor outcomes after exposure to SARS-CoV2 occur in those with pre-existing susceptibilities in the form of advanced age, obesity, diabetes, low Vitamin D levels, general poor health, and residing in a long-term care facility (LTC).
https://covidtracking.com/data/longtermcare
This matters greatly, because susceptibility, while sometimes leading to tragic outcomes, is not contagious. While it's true that SARS-CoV2 viral particles can be passed from person to person, mere infection is simply not the decisive factor in the development of the disease we now call "Covid".
The demonstrated role of susceptibility and its known forms falsifies the claim that due to the existence of SARS-CoV2, every human is now a potential angel of death to every and any other human, and that “saving lives” therefore depends on exerting total control over the entire populace's efflux of viral particles at all times and in all situations. Measures designed to "stop" all transmission, at enormous social, political, economic and health cost, makes no sense when the prime cause of advanced disease associated with SARS-CoV2 is not the "infection" per se, but the pre-existing susceptibilities that allow an otherwise harmless exposure to become lethal.
The virome is a vast ocean swirling around humanity, inside and out, and there is ultimately no "escaping" it. If I can not safely swim in the deep water because I'm not strong enough to deal with the tides and waves, does it protect me to prevent the entire population of those who can swim well from entering the deep water? Does that make the deep water ultimately safe for me?
Virtually all of us appalled and harmed by the blunt force trauma coronavirus "control" measures that have been forced on the general public were always, and remain, fully prepared to voluntarily do whatever we can for the people in our circles at high risk for complications from SARS-CoV2 or any infectious respiratory pathogen. We are happy to give wide berth to those struggling to balance in the shallows, or bring them what they need from the deep water.
But arguing that we should respond to the fact of asymmetric risk by attempting to control every aspect of every human's behavior is like arguing that because people fall sometimes, we should get rid of gravity.
While I shouldn't be dragged into the ocean against my will (Forced into more contact with people than I want), neither should strangers be forced to stay out of the ocean (Forced to suspend their lives and limit their activities) on my account.
Those of us advocating for the right of individuals to assess and respond to risk, according to our particular circumstances, and as we see fit, have got to correct the record on the nature of the risk individuals and societies face with regard to SARS-CoV2.
We've got to find ways to make it clear to our friends and family and the public, that pre-existing susceptibility to COMPLICATIONS from infection, and not SARS-CoV2 infection itself is the decisive factor in SARS-CoV2-associated morbidity and mortality. Rather than doing massive social and economic violence to societies based on the idea that "infection" is the central risk, efforts should be bent towards addressing those pre-existing susceptibilities that can be addressed, and offering focused protection to those susceptible in ways that can't be altered.
There is no such thing as a contagion of susceptibility, and pretending that mere infection is responsible for SARS-CoV2 associated morbidity and mortality has allowed public health bureaucracies to grab extraordinary powers. The continuation of this twisted narrative on risk will enable the state and its corporate/"philanthropic" partners to perpetuate more criminal costly violations of civil liberties in the near and far future.
Susceptibility is not contagious. We should act like it
Written November 20, 2020
Well done!
For the record, here's what I've gathered about what we already knew right from the very beginning:
> As a Matter of Fact, We Did Know!
-- https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/a7793df453dd