Were You There When the Curve Got Flat?

     We were all trying to do our part (mostly) by wearing a mask and staying at home (sort of) and not holding family ...OK, we actually did a lot of hand washing and stuff, and I just got to thinking about just when that curve actually got flattened enough so people that make decrees thought it was safe enough to come out again? I must have been busy trying on new masks and missed it, and I haven’t been able to find anybody that actually heard the announcement.  I still see people wearing masks and double masks and not going out and I guess that’s ok for some, and I do prefer fist bumps to handshaking now just to avoid the resurgence of the flu or a cold. Some even think that months and years might stretch into practically never before things are all normal again as far as COVID and its evil little variants go, and I’m not prepared for that kind of sacrifice for me or my kids or my grandkids. You’re probably not either. I think most of us just got tired of all the foolishness not working and stopped participating. Like Bugs Bunny would say, “enough is too much.”

     Trying to find a few answers, I found the place where the curve itself seems to have originated way back in March 2020 (https://www.flattenthecurve.com).  This is also the place where the lockdown idea was thought to have come from, and, according to the site, was developed by some not so well-known people and an assistant professor from Oregon State.  There doesn’t appear to be a lot of research to back the theory, but I would guess that most people, when asked about the ideas’ validity, heard “well, it’s based on a mathematical concept” and immediately stopped listening and said, “If it’s based on math don’t try to explain and I’ll just do whatever it is you want.” So, we have. Mostly.  Sort of. For a while.

     What really happened was that Bill Gates said he thought it would be a great idea and most of us bought it because he must know all the answers because he has most of the world’s money and why would he lie? China did lockdowns, but what they did (and are still doing) was several levels above and beyond anything allowed in the US unless you are a Cuomo, and even he could only go so far before someone stood up and said, “Mario, you might want to rethink that book idea.”

     I’ve never understood why the opinions of Bill and other “famous” people were immediately sought for solutions of any type, much less those opinions about actions to be taken in a health emergency. Do we actually believe that because they are, for whatever reason, famous that means they must be endowed with Mensa level IQs and powers of divination and mystical abilities beyond the ken of mere mortals? I never knew Bill had any expertise in virology or medicine or even held an elected office. Evidently, someone somewhere thought all his money gave him insight into how to save the world. That seems more than a little out of his area of expertise to me, even if he did complete an online medical program.

     For those of you, however, that are grounded in reason and facts and seek more information to make your own decisions, the answer you most often will get is whatever you come to believe has been “debunked” as a conspiracy theory. “Debunked” for the uninitiated is a term that originally meant “disproven” but in the 1990’s Hillary changed the definition to “that idea is not something we like or approve of so we will tell everyone you’re nuts if you believe that.” It no longer means proof is involved, simply the application of the term “debunked” to indicate if you believe something besides what we want you to believe, your level of intelligence is not very high.  Certainly not on the Clintonian level.

     So, we are to believe that all doctors and disease transmission experts and microbiologists and mathematicians and rich people and Hollywood actors believe that lockdowns are an effective way of fighting COVID?  Maybe even the ONLY way? Not so fast, my friend. It seems that infectious disease epidemiologists and public health officials have other ideas. It doesn’t seem they have yet been “debunked” but maybe that’s why NBC and the other alphabets haven’t said anything about them. As of this moment there are 870,827 concerned citizens, 15,989 medical and public health scientists and 47,278 medical practitioners that believe lockdowns are ineffective, inefficient, cruel and counterproductive in solving any infectious disease crisis (including COVID), and that maybe, just maybe, there are other solutions.

    Short- and long-term public health effects of lockdowns that we are now just beginning to see include drastic decreases in childhood vaccination rates, fewer cancer screenings, higher risk for cardiovascular disease patients - all leading to higher mortality rates in years to come - at least one year of school lost for most students, a drastic increase in mental health issues, and irreparable damage to our economy, especially small business. Our ECONOMY you scream! Is money all you’re worried about you heartless ...No, it’s not just about money, but the connection between personal income and food is an important one.  One UN report surmises that lockdown restrictions worldwide led to millions suffering from hunger and about 10,000 children per month perishing from starvation during that time. Lockdowns also effectively ended vaccination projects for measles and polio, and resultant measles outbreaks have already occurred.  Estimates of 400,000 deaths from the lack of TB treatments have occurred in the poorest countries, and it’s a sure bet surges in polio will soon follow.

It does seem rather curious that the flu seemed to undergo a drastic reduction in the overall number of cases while all this was going on. In 2016-17 there were 29,220,523 cases of flu reported for all age groups in the US, over 41 million in 2017-18, almost 29 million in 2018-19, and almost 36 million in 20-21 but in 2021-22 that number dropped to 9,297,880. Maybe it was all that handwashing and double masking, or maybe the flu was just as scared of COVID as we were told to be.

     But lockdowns have been proven to work, right? I mean, surely there’s a history of success with that method in eradicating infectious diseases. So you might think, but you would be wrong.  Basic epidemiological disease theory tells us that lockdowns not only fail to reduce the total infection rate, they have NEVER IN HISTORY led to the eradication of any disease. Never.  Ever.  In human History.  At best they can delay infection rates for a short period of time and at great human cost. Eventually lockdowns will fail, partly because of human nature and partly because infection rates will eventually rise.

     So what’s a better option?  Is there one? Yes, Virginia, there is.  One methodology is Focused Protection.  You can read about it for yourself at

https://gbdeclaration.org/

  “What’s this?” you ask.  “Why have I never heard of this? It sounds important.” You’ve never heard of it because all of our news people have been replaced by social influencers that don’t really care much about anything but being socially influential and politicians whose primary interest is themselves rather than the people they represent. Science tells us that the COVID virus is more than 1000 times more dangerous to our older population than to children and young adults. Adopting measures to protect those in nursing homes and retirees should be a focus while allowing those with minimal risk of death to live normally.  Hand washing and staying at home when sick and other common-sense procedures allow any nations’ population to reach the herd immunity threshold quickly. Schools should stay opened, activities continued, restaurants and other businesses should remain open, and church services continue as usual.

     Unlike lockdown procedures, herd immunity is not heartless and has not been “debunked” by science. Now that some common sense has been restored and herd immunity has indeed been reached, lockdowns will soon fall into that category of things that were tried and failed, a lot like “duck and cover” that was supposed to protect school children in case of a nearby nuclear blast.   Some might still insist that lockdowns be continued in spite of their negative results and the law of unintended consequences. If so, perhaps we should investigate the motives of those that cry “follow the science” and ignore what the science says. Perhaps they are lying dog faced pony soldiers, and their motives are more insidious than the disease itself. Sometimes control can be a dangerous drug in its own right. Maybe there’s a lockdown for that one, too; or maybe a lockup would provide a more appropriate solution.