One of the lessons emanating from our coronavirus era is that by generating fear, the masses can be easily controlled and manipulated. Very few question the guidelines (often enforced) that are dictated by the “authorities.”
We are told to ensure a distance of six feet from the next person.
Since the virus is airborne, what’s so magical about six feet and why is the rule the same inside and out?
I assume it’s part of the one-size-fits-all policy. Where is the scientific evidence that being barricaded inside is safer than outside in the fresh air?
While the population is inundated with the “Stay home. Stay safe” message, numerous specialists in the medical and scientific fields disagree with lockdowns and suggest a more targeted approach to controlling the virus and saving the economy.
They advocate protecting the elderly and those with chronic underlying conditions, isolating the sick and opening small businesses and certain other workplaces with prescribed large-group guidelines, because isolating the entire population prevents the widespread development of immunity.
Dr. Knut WittKowski, former head of the department of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University New York, believes that isolating people could lead to more deaths in the long term because it “prolongs efforts in developing herd immunity.”
Leading German virus expert in microbiology, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, agrees.
Dr. Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, says according to antibody studies based on collected data — not model assumptions — the mortality rate will be 0.1 to 0.5 per cent. He contends that “the only way to get past the COVID-19 outbreak is to develop herd immunity.”
Founding director (1998-2019) of Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at Yale University, Dr. David Katz, supports discontinuing total isolation and allowing population immunity while protecting the most vulnerable.
Unfortunately, we are not privy to the opinions of the numerous experts like those mentioned because their research findings are not consistent with the “scripted narrative” propagated daily by government-paid officials from government-sanctioned platforms, and any individual wishing to bring attention to contradictory views is usually dismissed or ignored.
Maybe our coronavirus panels should heed the advice of Sophocles: “Good as it is to have infallible wisdom, since this is rarely found, the next best thing is to be willing to listen to (other) advice.”
Meanwhile, we remain imprisoned in our homes passively parroting our new coined platitudes, awaiting permission to exercise our freedoms until the next fear-induced tactic is employed.
Let’s take a lesson from a recent poster which reads “A ship is safe at harbour but that’s not what a ship is built for.”
U.S. President Ronald Reagan once advised “Trust. But verify.”
Have we been accepting everything while questioning nothing?
Clayton Rowsell
Mount Pearl
