The coronavirus pandemic was counteracted, at the beginning of the crisis, by a “Chinese” called “lockdown” (no – total closure).
The rest of the world, seeing China’s reaction to an unknown disease, “borrowed” this so-called solution, telling people, “We’ll stay at home until it passes!” It’s just that, six months after the first lockdowns, we’ve seen what people have been saying ever since, refusing to let their logical and rational thinking be “infected” under fear. Specifically, an airborne disease will never go away, no matter how long we stay in homes. That’s why we didn’t get rid of the seasonal flu or the common colds that have always circulated among people.
Although the “lockdown” method has proved ineffective and has created many serious problems, which will remain with us long after the pandemic is over, it still has vocal supporters! We are talking about people who are competing in the embrace of meaningless ideas with those who are protesting against the use of masks.
That is why, in recent days, the US Attorney General made a devastating comparison between the lockdown method and the phenomenon of slavery, which has tarnished the history of the United States. And now it is the turn of Daniel Hannan, a British politician, a member of the Conservative Party, to launch a devastating but well-argued attack against those calling for the reinstatement of the lockdown in various countries.
“The total quarantine of countries has a logic, when we talk about an emergency measure, meant to gain time and quickly increase capacity (no – health system). But there can be no answer in the fight against a virus. Lockdowns are the most destructive tools in a pandemic. It does not offer any exit strategy. And looking at the data gathered around the world, there’s not much evidence that it works.
In March, people predicted a major humanitarian disaster in Sweden, which, defying international pressure, kept shops, restaurants and schools open. In reality, even there, the disease has had, in general, the same trajectory as in countries with a total quarantine. With one difference: Sweden is not worried about a second wave now and has not suffered even half of the economic disaster we have experienced.
Supporters of the lockdowns offered all sorts of explanations to justify what is happening in Sweden:
* Apparently, the Swedes are isolated, lonely people who practice social distancing even when there is no pandemic.
* Their population has a low density.
* Swedes like to live alone.
That’s right, but no one said that in March. Cognitive dissonance is a really strong force: when a new reality questions our prejudices, we rather like to attack that reality than accept that our prejudices were wrong.
It’s just that the facts keep coming together! Even countries that have not practiced any kind of social distancing have somehow avoided disaster. At the beginning of the pandemic, Alexander Lukashenko, the ridiculous dictator of Belarus, decided that his people were immune to the new coronavirus. Westerners panic to worry about the virus, he said. “The harsh people of White Russia will go through a pandemic with a sauna and vodka.” It is difficult to have a clear picture of what is happening in a dictatorship, but we have all seen on television images of protesters from Belarus gathered in the streets. Did you think they were people suffering from the disease?
Addressing members of the British Parliament, Professor Francesco Checchi, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, pointed out that, including in Yemen, a war-torn country where social distancing was impossible, the number of cases of COVID-19, which required hospitalization, has been declining since June.
So why is God talking about the need for new lockdowns in Europe? Why do we continue to believe in local closures, without any concrete evidence that such measures make any difference? It is not enough to say “Good security outweighs evil!” Such a justification is not enough when you propose measures that:
* destroy lives
* creates armies of the unemployed
* I upset the education of the little ones
* the number of deaths caused by cancer and suicides is increasing
* abolishes basic human rights
When you come up with such radical proposals, it is your duty to justify them with solid arguments. When the price to be paid is so high, then the justifications must be appropriate. Needless to say, without those lockdowns at the beginning of the year, the results may have been different. You have to prove with indisputable evidence that this was the case! You have to show what has actually been gained through those quarantines.
And then why are some of us so big supporters of lockdowns? Partly because of the way the virus spread in an early stage. If the virus had spread, say, to Canada or Norway, countries where the total confinement of people in homes would have been unimaginable, and the next steps in the fight against the pandemic would have looked very different. But because locking people up in China is commonplace, and because Italy, which had originally considered zoning quarantine, panicked and expanded it nationwide, the lockdown suddenly became “fashionable.” at the planetary level. A popular policy for the followers of the current “Something must be done”.
And once the initial restrictions were implemented, they later became even more severe due to this wave of support. Every outbreak of infection, every increase in mortality has become an extra argument for an even tougher quarantine. And the logic is completely gone. Even the idea that these lockdowns were unnecessary became too annoying and was therefore ignored.
Just as politicians are influenced by public opinion, they are also influenced by their advisers. They know that they will not have problems, that they will not be held accountable if they are too careful. As long as the public demands lockdowns and restrictions – and it is indeed a sad but well-documented reality that people develop inclinations towards dictatorial measures when they feel threatened by various dangers – different medical commissions are consulted with governments. The world will be reluctant to recommend relaxation measures.
And yet, with each passing day, it becomes clearer that the disease has not grown exponentially anywhere. Something is holding her back, for the most part, regardless of local policy. An increasing number of epidemiologists believe that there is partial immunity among the population through exposure to other coronaviruses. This idea would also explain why the countries of Southeast Asia, recently hit by SARS, have done so well now. There are at least six studies that suggest that this partial immunity does exist in humans.
If so – and it would be fair to rely on sound scientific evidence rather than models that draw catastrophic consequences – then most restrictive decisions by governments are completely useless. But some of us are offended by such an idea. After six months of pandemic, our logic is still tragically in quarantine.