“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Winston Churchill
Can we agree on something? We lock-down to prevent spread of the virus? Yes? We mask and socially distance to accomplish the same end? And the unseen killer is asymptomatic spread? You can include pre-symptomatic spread in that category as well. These are the only reasons.
We can take it as read that the vast majority of people who feel ill and have symptoms will stay home. Possibly, a year ago, a majority would not have been pliable enough to accept that lock-downs were necessary to prevent the miniscule number of people who might behave like idiots (although the Lock-down Home Guard, comprised of neighborhood curtain twitchers, would have informed on them anyway), so without the bogeyman of asymptomatic spread, an unprecedented measure like lock-downs would not have succeeded.
Where did the idea even come from? It was never mentioned in 2003 (during the SARS 'pandemic') or 2006 (Avian Flu), it has never been touted during flu season, no matter how severe.
Lock-downs
The idea comes from two sources in the US from around 2006. The alleged near miss with the 2006 Avian Flu epidemic prompted some soul searching at federal level, as it became clear than pandemic preparedness, as a field of study, was not burdened with any cohesive strategies and tactics. Two government non experts and a 14 year old school girl later, (I kid you not) and a pseudo academic paper was presented to the Bush White House.(1)
Lacking, as it did, any consideration of ethics, constitutional rights, economics or countervailing views from actual experts in viral pandemics and relying on computer simulations, the high school paper naturally became the template. Whilst it ostensibly sought to address mitigation against an influenza pandemic, it's recommendations included this gem:
“Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted.”(2)
Note the phrase 'must be imposed'. Mandatory social distancing had never previously been proposed and not because the Constitutional framers couldn't have foreseen a challenge of this magnitude. Between 1776 and 1787, when the Constitution was implemented, pandemic after pandemic swept the 13 states and 30% of the population was lost. Then there was the Spanish Flu in 1918-20. And yet the US Constitution does not provide federal or state authority for the imposition of long duration lockdowns and no-one deemed it necessary to amend it to ensure that it did. At best, state governors and local authorities have the ability to issue 14-60 day executive orders. That's it.
In that light, it would seem that somebody at federal level blanched at the prospect of committing the word 'mandatory' to paper and instead put together a 90 page guide which explicitly states that isolation for sick people is voluntary (even in circumstances much more impactive than Covid 19) and that voluntary isolation of healthy people with sick people is 'generally not recommended' but should be considered – presumably by the healthy people themselves, but certainly not by the authorities. The maximum duration of any such isolation would be 12 weeks, but more likely 6-8.
There is no mention of widespread business closures, merely suggestions for mitigation efforts within work environments and strategies for coping with absenteeism through actual illness. No mask mandates, even those this guidance was issued with viral pandemics in mind. Instead, it places a responsibility on authorities, stating that
“federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial officials should review laws, regulations, and policies to identify ways to help mitigate the economic impact of a severe pandemic and implementation of the pandemic mitigation measures on employers, individuals, and families, especially vulnerable populations.”(3)
However, a gentleman named Dr Donald Henderson, the driving force behind the eradication of smallpox and a man who, you would think, might be worth listening to, completely refuted even this watered down plan on the grounds of efficacy (there being no scientific data to support the hypotheses), ethics – as in quarantining healthy people with sick people, among other matters – economic and social costs.
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal,a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”(4)
The federal policy was, nonetheless, adopted. And there it rested until March 2020 and Covid. Somehow, state governors, presumably guided (or goaded) by the Feds, implemented orders that replicated the study paper, not federal policy. Instead of an order recommending voluntary compliance with measures proposed, they defaulted immediately to mandatory orders and nobody challenged them. How did that happen? And under what authority? On its face – and it really isn't as complicated as some would want you to believe –
“the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency”(5)
and that includes the right to free assembly (First Amendment) and the guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). These have been obliterated.
In the UK, the lock-down was equally sudden and all pervasive and, due to the lack of a confederation of states, government mandated. On 16th March, the secretary of state was telling parliament that '”unnecessary social contact should cease”; the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, indicated that this was “advice”, an unnecessary intervention as speeches in the House of Commons and legislation have always been separate entities. As to what constituted “unnecessary social contact”, who knew?
The government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) weighed in with its considered opinion, which was that there was
“clear evidence to support additional social distancing measures be introduced as soon as possible.”(6)
A week later, coronavirus laws were passed, which were absent any detail (due to the urgency of the pandemic, you understand), but which relied upon a 1984 law for their legitimacy, provisions to be announced in due course.(7) There is, however, clear evidence, even to a lay person, that the law relied upon does not provide the authority required to mandate nation wide lock-downs, neither domestic nor commercial.(8)
In a democracy, with a separation of judicial and executive powers, the coronavirus regulations are ultra vires, or acts that require legal authority but which are done without it. Not that a court in the land will find it so. And, incidentally, there is a 2004 Act relating to civil contingencies which is more suited to pandemic-like scenarios, but it has an element of parliamentary oversight that the 1984 Act lacks. Provided parliament is not sitting, the government can simply leave the regulations in place, which is exactly what it did.
So, there is a huge problem with the legitimacy of the UK lock-down, as there is with the US version. This is not unexpected, if you think about it. Firstly, lock-downs have never happened before, which might lead you to check whether, instead of there being long dormant laws never previously invoked, but brought to life now in the face of this once in a lifetime pandemic, maybe there were no laws at all. Which would be correct.
But that didn't happen, in either country, and here's why. You make it the worst thing ever; make it so people vehemently believe that. Make them afraid and keep them afraid. Make it so that any measure you introduce can't be morally opposed. Make it so that only the most courageous will speak up and oppose you. Pick them off, so that others can see their fate. Then let the zealots police everyone else.
And, in the resultant panic, the majority don't mind having their fundamental rights ripped away because, well, it's necessary and we're halfway conditioned to it already. The government told us so. And, when it's happened once, it's much easier to do it again...and again. The precedent is all important.
Adding to the supposed legitimacy of such draconian measures was the Chinese story. They locked down Hubei province in late January (well, they sealed it from the rest of China, anyway). This lasted until April 7th and, a week after that, there were allegedly no new coronavirus deaths in the entire country of 1.4 billion citizens. By summer, China had resumed normal life, or what passes for such in a totalitarian society.
But the whole point of democracies is that they're not China, a distinction seemingly lost on Western authorities in the year 2020. Nonetheless, sounds plausible, doesn't it? Lock-downs obviously work. Or could it be that the Chinese realized that Covid was not the deadly pandemic as advertised and did away with lock-downs whilst mitigating the spread of the disease and not telling the West what they were doing? And that lock-downs had nothing to do with it?
Well, we can't answer for China, but we can testify as to the scientific literature that existed prior to 2020. It's worth doing so, because states and the media have memory holed it, pretended it didn't exist.
“A more transmissible variant of a virus has a clear advantage over a less transmissible variant; but if we put pressure on the virus, we confer an even greater advantage on those more contagious variants” and “in a world of social distancing, we are conferring a greater advantage on the more transmissible variants of that virus.”(9)
By attempting to suppress the virus, by all the mitigations covered in this paper, but especially by lock-downs, we are providing an advantage to the more transmissible mutations. There are already over 4,000 variations, including sixteen, highly infectious mutant lineages from South Africa.(10)
Lock-downs have a very limited impact on the spread of a virus. They do, however, have a marked effect on its prevalence; they serve to help it spread. This is not a revelation to the adults in the room; this is basic evolutionary biology. Makes you wonder why they're doing it, doesn't it?
And what of masks and social distancing? Together with the isolation of lock-downs, the holy trinity of responses necessary to 'save lives' and signal your virtue?
Masks/Social Distancing
“In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting in a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”(11)
Given that, there would need to be some very compelling evidence to show that the benefits of masking up outweighed the risk, would there not? And that the benefits would be applicable in a real life situation, not just in a pristine laboratory. By benefits, I'm not referring to them being a visible sign of compliance, a guarantee of fealty, a reminder that we have given up our rights. I'm talking about objective facts - dangerous territory.
The message began as 'masks protect other people'. It must have been felt that such an exhortation didn't appeal sufficiently to our selfish instinct for self preservation, so it soon changed to
“Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”)… Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”).”(12)
However, before masks were good, masks were bad and with good reason. To begin with, the authorities were telling us that wearing a might make us feel better, but it didn't have any practical effect. The likes of the infallible Dr Fauci and The World Health Organisation (WHO) advised against wearing one, unless you were caring for somebody who was sick. So, what changed? A slew of studies to contradict the established science? Incontrovertible evidence that lives would be spared, if only we could be responsible citizens? No. Nothing changed, except the messaging.
“You wear your mask to protect me… I wear my mask to protect you.”(13)
Unless, of course, you want to include even more evidence to show that masks had no effect and that they were, in fact, harmful to the wearer as well. Infected people exhale viral particles called virions, which are contained within larger molecules called aerosols. Aerosols are very small; virions are even smaller. Studies have been conducted and the results are in:
“The wide variation in penetration levels for room air particles, which included particles in the same size range of viruses, confirms that surgical masks should not be used for respiratory protection.”(14)
There are other studies also, including a large scale Danish study, which found that no benefit accrued to mask wearers. And logically, not only do masks offer you no protection from others, they offer others no protection from you.
Let's dispense with the other potential issues. Will social distancing help? No. Studies have shown that viral particles remain, floating in the air, long after the person who expressed them has left the scene of the crime. Real life examples of cruise ships etc serve to confirm this finding; very high rates of infection, despite distancing and masking.(15)
And, lastly, if virions can float about in the air, unimpeded, surely they can alight on any surface and thereby infect someone that touches that surface? No, very unlikely. The risk is about 1/10,000.(16) This is not news; scientists courageous enough to dissent from the orthodoxy have been saying so from the start.
Sometimes, a step back and the introduction of a little common sense can be of benefit. Has anybody stopped and looked at the evidence? How many alleged waves of Covid have there been? Two, maybe three at the last count. Mask wearing has been de rigeur for a year now, so it doesn't seem to be doing very much, does it? Could that possibly be because they don't work, which is what the science has said from the beginning?
But face coverings were necessary because even people without symptoms spread the disease. None of this nonsense would stand a chance of succeeding were it not for that third lie, that asymptomatic people could still spread Covid. Media were, once again, the unquestioning mouthpiece of the state, creating an environment where the gullible policed the sceptical.
Asymptomatic spread
Once again, we need to venture back to TBC (Time Before Covid), the era when it was scientifically accepted that there was very little chance of any viral spread by anyone who was asymptomatic. It had never previously been acknowledged as a phenomenon. This is intuitive to non boffins, as well. If I'm not coughing and spluttering over people, I'm unlikely to be passing on whatever ails me.
Of course, that all changed when Covid came around and enough pliant doctors could be convinced that they were doing the public a favor by lying to them, taking advantage of the public's ignorance on matters scientific or their trust in 'experts'. A noble lie, in their eyes no doubt, but a lie nonetheless and a token of arrogance and we-know-best-itis. Either that, or they were corrupt, because there is no scientific basis for alleging that asymptomatic spread is anything but a rarity with Covid and plenty to show otherwise.
In addition, given the known inaccuracy of the PCR test which, in most cases, was the test used to establish an asymptomatic person in the first place, do we actually know they had a live virus but no symptoms? Perhaps they were pre-symptomatic, early in the infection with no symptoms yet present. Perhaps they had already had the infection weeks ago and the test was picking up dead, viral fragments. There is no way of being sure under present testing conditions.
And how did asymptomatic persons, on the one hand, transform into asymptomatic spread, on the other? They are two different things and the existence of one does not provide any evidence as to the existence of the other. As examined elsewhere, a virus may initially have a relatively high sickness/mortality rate before it becomes less serious and a greater proportion of the population present as asymptomatic. There is nothing in that hypothesis to suggest that asymptomatic people spread the virus (although it may be taken as a sign that the virus is losing steam). In fact, there are numerous studies demonstrating the opposite.
A meta analysis, a study of studies, published in December 2020 (and therefore analyzing studies of earlier provenance) found that, among individual households, symptomatic transmission ran at around 18%. Asymptomatic transmission, on the other hand, was pegged at 0.7%.(17) So, roughly one in five symptomatic people passed on the disease, which is a much lower rate than expected and less than 1% of asymptomatic people did same. This finding was from 54 studies and 77,000 participants.
Now, the rational for masking, distancing and stay at home orders is the alleged significant transmission from asymptomatic people. If that isn't the case, which it clearly isn't, then that provides yet another reason why none of the restrictions that have been imposed and which continue to be imposed are legitimate. Voluntary self isolation if sick, okay. Anything else, not okay.
Conclusions
Let's not be mealy mouthed, for once. Let's not sit on the fence because, despite overwhelming evidence, we don't want to commit in case an aberrant judgment by a court contradicts our thesis. Let's not use words like 'seems' or 'likely'. The regulations and executive orders passed in both the US and the UK, and possibly in every other country whose legal system is modeled on English common law, are illegitimate and illegal. It's not necessary to be a legal expert to assert this. It's plain to see on first examination. They have been allowed to stand because of a combination of state and media manipulation of the populace and because of activists within that same populace who have enlisted the fearful and credulous in silencing any questioning or dissent.
They've been allowed to stand because people have forgotten what risk management is. What it isn't is 'an abundance of caution'. That is not a virtue and never has been. That is the refuge of the incompetent, of the cowardly and, latterly, of the corrupt. Anybody can overreact to a crisis; in these circumstances, anyone can 'cover their ass' by closing everything and telling everyone to stay at home, provided that they have sufficient disregard for the laws of their country as to think that they possess that authority to begin with. That is the opposite of leadership and maybe it's intended to be just that.
A wise person, a skilled and empathetic person (the sort of person you'd like to be in charge) would weigh the different factors within the framework of their authority and they would continue to evaluate as circumstances changed, as they inevitably do. They would understand that, as well as care, there is fairness and proportionality. There is the obligation to do as little harm as possible, on both sides of that equation.
Lock-downs are a political solution, not a scientific one. In the United States, lock-downs correlated with a greater spread of the virus, the exact opposite of the alleged intention.(18) States that largely stayed open, such and Florida and Texas, fared better than states that had the most draconian measures imposed upon them, such as Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey. This pattern was also reflected internationally, with Sweden for example.
And when did it become the orthodoxy that you could be a danger to others and spread disease even when you had no symptoms? That masks and social distancing were vital and still are? Who had even heard of the term 'social distancing' before last year?
How do you get people to do as you wish? You start by using the tools at your disposal and, if you're the state and one of those tools is the corporate media, you might persuade them to pump out your message. If your purpose is benign, this doesn't have to be a bad thing. A benign intent would be recognizable by the debate that might ensue, by the different views expressed and examined. In this atmosphere, you would seek to win the day by virtue of your superior argument, something which you trust the people would see and appreciate. That’s democracy.
Did that happen here? Emphatically not. Dissenting voices weren't even given a space in the public square. No attempt was made to convince on the merits of the ideas. Very few states, either in US or elsewhere, trusted their peoples to do anything voluntarily. It was all laws, orders and mandates. The only time that might be acceptable is in a time of war and, even then, rarely. Because in a time of war, people are being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice and the justification for that needs to be pretty damn clear and the right to question that justification is fundamental to a democracy.
You'll notice that states love to use terminology that suggests just that, A 'war on drugs', a 'war on terror', a 'war on Covid'. Don't be gulled. This is a virus that has, at worst, a 99.8% survival rate. If you're healthy, if you're under sixty, it's way higher than that. We are not in a war against Covid. But we, the people (or some of us, at least), are at war with our leaders.
Citations
Glass, R. J., Glass, L. M., Beyeler, W. E., & Min, H. J. (2006). Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12(11), 1671-1681. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1211.060255.
Ditto
https://cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigation-sm.pdf
Henderson D.A., et al Disease Mitigation Measures in the Controlof Pandemic Influenza BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, AND SCIENCE Volume 4, Number 4, 2006
https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/courts-say-extreme-lockdowns-dont-pass-constitution-sniff-test
https://gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid19-response-16-march-2020
https:ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/06/lockdown-a-response-to-professor-king-robert-craig
Tegally H, et al. Sixteen novel lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa. Nat Med. 2021 Mar;27(3):440-446. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01255-3. Epub 2021 Feb 2. PMID: 33531709
Baruch Vainshelboim Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110411
Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (pp. 2-3). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-30/)Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 4). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357397/) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 12). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220307396) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks (p. 13). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmissions.html.
Zachary J Madewell, et al Household Transmission of Sars Cov 2. A systematic Review & Meta Analysis 2020
https://wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890