Recently I took a look at how far restrictions have limited the alleged deaths resulting from the alleged Plague. House arrests, business closures, mandates to mask-up, prohibitions on travel and free assembly... the whole, sorry mess of fascist rule. What effect did they have?
Two caveats: (1) none of the published death counts can be trusted; they are all government lies. Also (2) the term "lockdown" is fuzzy. Some governments were savage. Some imposed only a few limits; some merely issued "advisories", etc; I just accepted the classification of the referenced sources.
The results are startling. First, within the USA there are seven States listed here as non-lockdown ones; AR, IA, NE, ND, SD, UT and WY. Six of them had Republican Governors. They show 209 deaths per million (DPM) compared to 563 for the rest of the USA; that is, 37%.
Thus: the more restrictions, the more deaths; the more freedom, the fewer reported death rates. In this country, lockdowns nearly triple DPMs.
Then I looked at the rest of the world. This Wiki page lists 11 countries without lockdowns, including Japan, S Korea, Sweden and Taiwan. They show a DPM of 27, compared to a worldwide level of 105.
Thus worldwide: the more restrictions, the more deaths; the more freedom, the fewer reported deaths. Overseas, lockdowns quadruple DPMs.
Those who claim lockdowns save lives are therefore grotesquely wrong. The very opposite is shown.
However, that's not quite all. Let's re-visit Caveat #1 above, for most reported deaths are, as is very obvious from this, this and this ZGBlog, outright lies. Some of them may be truthful, but if so we can only guess which ones. So we must modify the finding above, to conclude only that lockdowns greatly increase the reported deaths. They may or may not have any effect on actual deaths.
Now let's notice the closed loop at work here: a government generates both the lockdown orders and the reports of how many died from Covid-19. Which of the two caused the other? Or was there no causal relationship at all?
I suggest that neither caused the other but that government caused both. That is, that in each country, government decided what policy to pursue, for its own reasons, and implemented both together. That's grim. It means that at any time, any government can create an "emergency" and then impose a range of regulations in "response." One more reason why "limited government" is impossible.
Currently some (eg New York, UK...) decided to impose heavy restrictions and so published DPM figures to "prove" how bad was the Plague there and so how urgently the lockdown was needed; while others (Sweden, Japan, S Dakota...) took a more laid-back approach because at the time they wanted folk to feel they were free and responsible; and so tried to minimize the death statistics. ("Tried", because I suspect that some of the reporting was fabricated "higher up.")
It could very well be that there was a deal of collusion, expecially among NATO members; governments agreed to vary these two policies so as to give each other tests of compliance, to use the felicitous phrase of Gary Barnett. They all want to know how far they can push us. As well as local objectives like the US Democrats' desperate wish to discredit Mr Trump, that's what it's all been for.
It's very ominous, especially as it succeeded so well; a large majority of people have been fooled. Governments have invented a "crisis" and imposed vicious new laws in response, and most folk have submitted. Compliance, alas, has been high. The ruling class must be cock-a-hoop.
Yet we can learn from it; this is what they always do! Often they start a war, large or small; though since 1945 really big ones have been unpopular for the wagers themselves might get vaporized. So they try to scare us with tales of runaway global cooling (1970s) or heating (ever since) which they alone can mitigate. This year they fabricated a plague, where none exists. It's what the Department of Scary Stories does all day. Without some kind of "crisis" looming, who'd need government?
Government is a total fraud, from top to bottom. It can and should be zapped; and that is up to you.
Recently I took a look at how far restrictions have limited the alleged deaths resulting from the alleged Plague. House arrests, business closures, mandates to mask-up, prohibitions on travel and free assembly... the whole, sorry mess of fascist rule. What effect did they have?
Two caveats: (1) none of the published death counts can be trusted; they are all government lies. Also (2) the term "lockdown" is fuzzy. Some governments were savage. Some imposed only a few limits; some merely issued "advisories", etc; I just accepted the classification of the referenced sources.
The results are startling. First, within the USA there are seven States listed here as non-lockdown ones; AR, IA, NE, ND, SD, UT and WY. Six of them had Republican Governors. They show 209 deaths per million (DPM) compared to 563 for the rest of the USA; that is, 37%.
Thus: the more restrictions, the more deaths; the more freedom, the fewer reported death rates. In this country, lockdowns nearly triple DPMs.
Then I looked at the rest of the world. This Wiki page lists 11 countries without lockdowns, including Japan, S Korea, Sweden and Taiwan. They show a DPM of 27, compared to a worldwide level of 105.
Thus worldwide: the more restrictions, the more deaths; the more freedom, the fewer reported deaths. Overseas, lockdowns quadruple DPMs.
Those who claim lockdowns save lives are therefore grotesquely wrong. The very opposite is shown.
However, that's not quite all. Let's re-visit Caveat #1 above, for most reported deaths are, as is very obvious from this, this and this ZGBlog, outright lies. Some of them may be truthful, but if so we can only guess which ones. So we must modify the finding above, to conclude only that lockdowns greatly increase the reported deaths. They may or may not have any effect on actual deaths.
I suggest that neither caused the other but that government caused both. That is, that in each country, government decided what policy to pursue, for its own reasons, and implemented both together. That's grim. It means that at any time, any government can create an "emergency" and then impose a range of regulations in "response." One more reason why "limited government" is impossible.
Currently some (eg New York, UK...) decided to impose heavy restrictions and so published DPM figures to "prove" how bad was the Plague there and so how urgently the lockdown was needed; while others (Sweden, Japan, S Dakota...) took a more laid-back approach because at the time they wanted folk to feel they were free and responsible; and so tried to minimize the death statistics. ("Tried", because I suspect that some of the reporting was fabricated "higher up.")
It could very well be that there was a deal of collusion, expecially among NATO members; governments agreed to vary these two policies so as to give each other tests of compliance, to use the felicitous phrase of Gary Barnett. They all want to know how far they can push us. As well as local objectives like the US Democrats' desperate wish to discredit Mr Trump, that's what it's all been for.
It's very ominous, especially as it succeeded so well; a large majority of people have been fooled. Governments have invented a "crisis" and imposed vicious new laws in response, and most folk have submitted. Compliance, alas, has been high. The ruling class must be cock-a-hoop.
Yet we can learn from it; this is what they always do! Often they start a war, large or small; though since 1945 really big ones have been unpopular for the wagers themselves might get vaporized. So they try to scare us with tales of runaway global cooling (1970s) or heating (ever since) which they alone can mitigate. This year they fabricated a plague, where none exists. It's what the Department of Scary Stories does all day. Without some kind of "crisis" looming, who'd need government?
Government is a total fraud, from top to bottom. It can and should be zapped; and that is up to you.