Why Social Distancing Should Not Be the New Normal
According to some, Bill Gates prominently among them, social distancing is part of “the new normal.” Alas, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest social distancing and lockdowns will not be necessary at all, and were probably a bad idea in the first place.
According to Nobel-prize-winning scientist Michael Levitt,1 the rate of SARS-CoV-2 mortality never experienced exponential growth, as was predicted, which suggests a majority of people may have had some sort of prior resistance or immunity.
Levitt, a professor of structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, received the Nobel Prize in 2013 for his development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.
Statistical data, he points out, reveal a mathematical pattern that has stayed consistent regardless of the interventions implemented. As reported by Freddie Sayers in the video above:
“After around a two-week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes ‘sub-exponential.’ This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound.
The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded.
But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses …
He believes that both some degree of prior immunity and large numbers of asymptomatic cases are important factors … He describes indiscriminate lockdown measures as ‘a huge mistake,’ and advocates a ‘smart lockdown’ policy, focused on … protecting elderly people.”
Now, evidence for prior resistance to SARS-CoV-2 is emerging, adding support to Levitt’s suspicions that the lack of exponential mortality growth may be due to the fact that a majority simply aren’t (and weren’t) susceptible to the disease in the first place.
"At this point, we can clearly see that an all-encompassing global totalitarian plan had been quietly put together, piece by piece, behind the scenes, only to be put into action once a pandemic — real or imagined — emerged. A key player in the coordination of this plan has been Bill Gates, who stands to profit in any number of ways, both from vaccines and technological rollouts."
… As noted by Sayers, this really throws the idea of social distancing being an unavoidable part of the post-COVID-19 “new normal” into question. What’s more, once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into this model, the effect of lockdown efforts “literally goes away,” Friston says.
According to Friston, the reason why Sweden and the U.K., for example, have had very similar mortality rates despite vastly different government interventions (Sweden did not impose mandatory stay-at-home orders or business closures while the U.K. did), is because Swedes who felt sick stayed home anyway. This is common sense for most people, especially during an active pandemic.
When Sayer asks Friston to comment on Neil Ferguson’s now discredited Imperial College model4 that predicted the death of 2 million Americans and 500,000 Britons unless draconian lockdown and social distancing measures were implemented, he replied that Ferguson’s models were correct “under the qualification that the population they were talking about is much smaller than you might imagine.”
“In other words, Ferguson was right that around 80% of susceptible people would rapidly become infected, and … that of those between 0.5% and 1% would die — he just missed the fact that the relevant ‘susceptible population’ was only ever a small portion of people …” Sayer writes.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/25/social-distancing.aspx