Michael Levitt, professor of structural biology at Stanford Medical School and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry, recently stated, “There is no doubt in my mind that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.”One side of the balance sheet is trumpeted while the costs in economic ruin are currently "de-platformed". It's like the joke about a SWAT team chasing terrorists who run into a department store. The team locks into place around the shop next door, "because it has fewer exits". The workplace and its diseases are more complex than the lockdown narrative. People with a badge of office and a received narrative have launched a simplistic experiment in economic destruction. They don't know what will happen. They hope it will make them look good and lives will be saved. Looking good trumps saving lives.
The single biggest crunch of the lockdown is social distancing, with two meters (an arbitrary number) for some and indoors only for others. This is a sensible thing to consider but not for blanket enforcement. It has never been tested like this. It's an experiment. The latest information points to an unsuccessful experiment. An input for that statement:
Julie Kelly at American Greatness: "The history of science, sadly, is littered with bad experiments gone horribly wrong. The Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020, when it is over, will very likely be toward the top of that list."She points out that a sensible experiment in "bending the curve" to avoid overloading ICU resources isn't currently needed but the lockdown fever burns on. The correlation is missing between how much many lives were manacled with lockdowns and how many people were ill.
The lockdown seems to be settling into a political question, not a health one. Politicians see no easy way to back down with glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment