Twenty times more people died rather than lived because of the lockdowns, the study reveals. Sedentary behavior, isolation and delayed medical treatments are among the many reasons why lockdowns caused far more harm than good.
"In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth," said the authors of the work from the Jerusalem College of Technology.
"The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns' effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence – neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918 – 1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past."
Entitled "Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?" the paper contains clear data estimating the number of lives lost due to lockdown restrictions, which were pushed by the likes of Tony Fauci, Deborah Birx and even Mike Pence. People would have been much better off just living their lives as normal, it turns out.
"It should be mentioned that the same conclusions – no clear benefit of lockdowns in case of pandemic – were made by national and international bodies before COVID-19 emerged," the paper further explains.
"Namely, several governments prepared detailed plans of response to influenza-like pandemics years ago – see the programs of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2007) and the Israeli Ministry of Health (2007)."
In 2019, WHO warned against lockdowns for pandemics saying they're "not recommended in any circumstances"
Even the World Health Organization (WHO) was against lockdowns before it was suddenly for them at the onset of the Fauci Flu plandemic. Here is what a comprehensive, 91-page preparedness plan released by WHO back in October 2019 says:
- Social distancing measures 'can be highly disruptive' and should be carefully weighted;
- Travel-related measures are 'unlikely to be successful;' 'border closures may be considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics;'
- Contact tracing and quarantine of exposed individuals are not recommended in any circumstances.
In other words, pretty much everything that ended up being imposed on the masses to fight covid was something that the WHO warned at least a year prior was not helpful in keeping people healthy and safe.
It is not just that lockdowns were ineffective: they were explicitly harmful, the paper found. They appear to have been used as a means of culling the population, not saving lives. (Related: Communist China is STILL doing lockdowns.)
"The lockdown policies had a direct side effect of increasing mortality," the paper explains. "Hospitals in Europe and USA were prepared to manage pretty small groups of highly contagious patients, while unprepared for a much more probable challenge – large-scale contagion."
"As a result, public health care facilities and nursing homes often became vehicles of contamination themselves – to a large extent because of the lockdown-based emergency policy implementation."
Every other time that lockdown measures have been tried throughout history, the effects were negative. At no point in time have they ever resulted in fewer sicknesses and deaths, and yet lockdowns were the first thing government officials both here and abroad suggested as a way to stop Chinese Germs from spreading.
"While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms lead to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic, as well as of the 1918 – 1920 H1N1 influenza type-A pandemic (the Spanish Flu) and numerous less-severe pandemics in the past," the paper concludes.
The latest plandemic-related news can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
