1-There is no historical precedent for lockdowns
2-There is no scientific basis for lockdowns
3-A number of infectious disease experts, like Swedish Professor John Giesecke, believe that lockdowns are the wrong policy to contain the spread of the virus, they're politically dangerous and they'll be difficult to end. Here's what he said:
"When you start looking around now at the measures that are being taken by different countries you find that very few of them have a shred of evidence-based [support] " border closures, school closures, social distancing - there's almost no science behind most of these."
Lockdowns are not science-based policy. They're a faith-based catch-as-catch-can concoction that's accepted as Holy Writ by the vast majority of Americans who are so terrified by the virus that they have allowed themselves to be duped by a manipulative, agenda-driven media that has convinced them that hibernating while the economy disintegrates is somehow performing their civic duty. But they're wrong. One's real civic duty is to engage their own critical thinking skills, skeptically analyze the idiocy that government passes off as social policy, and resist those directives that are clearly destructive to the interests of the American people and the country. Lockdowns certainly meet that criteria. Here's a clip from Pepe Escobar's latest article that helps to put things in perspective:
"The notion of a generalized obligatory confinement is not warranted by any medical justification, or leading epidemiological research, when it comes to fighting a pandemic. Still, that was enshrined as the hegemonic policy - with the inevitable corollary of countless masses plunged into unemployment. All that based on failed, delirious mathematical models of the Imperial College kind, imposed by powerful pressure groups ranging from the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the Munich Security Conference.
Enter Dr. Richard Hatchett, a former member of the National Security Council during the first Bush Jr. administration, who was already recommending obligatory confinement of the whole population way back in 2001. Hatchett now directs the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a very powerful entity coordinating global vaccine investment, and very cozy with Big Pharma. CEPI happens to be a brainchild of the WEF in conjunction with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Rumsfeld, crucially, had been the chairman of biotech giant Gilead. After 9/11... That's when "generalized obligatory confinement" was conceptualized, with Hatchett among the key players.
As much as this was a militarized Big Pharma spin-off concept, it had nothing to do with public health. What mattered was the militarization of American society to be adopted in response to bioterror - at the time automatically attributed to a squalid, tech-deprived al-Qaeda.
The current version of this project - we are at "war" and every civilian must stay at home - takes the form of what Alexander Dugin has defined as a "medical-military dictatorship". ("How Biosecurity Is Enabling Digital Neo-Feudalism" Unz Review.)
So, there is no "medical justification, or leading epidemiological research" to support lockdowns. It's all made-up out of whole cloth. Lockdowns are the result of political manipulation (of a public-health crisis) intended to simulate martial law. "Go home and stay home," that's the message not "Go home and be healthy". That doesn't factor into the government's calculus at all.
So on whose behalf are these lockdowns being imposed? Certainly not Trump who's wanted to lift them from Day 1. No, it's his surrounding cast, like the affable Dr Anthony Fauci who just recently appeared before the Senate and ominously cautioned them against lifting restrictions too soon. His warnings closely resembled those of his colleague and perhaps, benefactor, Bill Gates, whose tentacles are wrapped tightly around the global health network and who, many think, uses philanthropic initiatives as a vehicle for advancing his own malign vision of the future. As for the lockdowns, we'll let Gates speak for himself:
"First, we need a consistent nationwide approach to shutting down. Despite urging from public-health experts, some states and counties haven't shut down completely. In some states, beaches are still open; in others, restaurants still serve sit-down meals.
"The country's leaders need to be clear: Shutdown anywhere means shutdown everywhere. Until the case numbers start to go down across America, which could take 10 weeks or more, no one can continue business as usual or relax the shutdown. Any confusion about this point will only extend the economic pain, raise the odds that the virus will return, and cause more deaths.
"To bring the disease to an end, we'll need a safe and effective vaccine. If we do everything right, we could have one in less than 18 months about the fastest a vaccine has ever been developed. But creating a vaccine is only half the battle. To protect Americans and people around the world, we'll need to manufacture billions of doses." ("Bill Gates: Here's how to make up for lost time on covid-19", Washington Post.)
Here's one more from Gates in case there's any doubts about his intentions:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
