SFU professor, David Allen, reviewed 80 papers in the lockdown literature.
You'd expect lockdowns and masks would have some clear benefit.
They don't. (Summary at The Epoch Times, here).
There is no net correlation between the measure taken and the cases of covid in the 80 papers.
He also makes a stab at a cost/benefit analysis, estimating years of lost life caused against years of life saved by those measures. Granted it's a very fuzzy number, but the first run through came up with over 200 to 1 times more evil done than good done. (A caveat is that in lockdown settings, some were cheating and in non-lockdown settings, some were complying with the intent anyway.).
Making this worse, he notes that research and opinion counter to the government narrative is suppresssed.
This cost/benefit effort has a key place in Canadian constitutional law. The constitution states: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaramtees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribedby law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" As Brian Peckford points out, until the cost benefit analyses have been done to demonstrate a justification for temporary abrogation of citizen rights, the statements of politicians and their staff about lockdowns are extra-legal. (Brian was premier of Newfoundland for 10 years and one of the original signatories of the Charter of Rights agreement with Justin's father, Pierre. He has a powerful site updated daily.)
No comments:
Post a Comment