Published: April 17, 2021 Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
The only two exceptions to this rule are extreme lockdowns in China and preemptive lockdowns in support of early border controls, which succeeded primarily on some islands and possibly in Indochina (Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia), Norway and Finland. Note that New Zealand and some other islands had already avoided the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics. Some of the most successful islands never even had a Western-style lockdown (e.g. Taiwan and Japan).
In contrast, lockdowns have caused unprecedented social and economic devastation, destroying hundreds of millions of livelihoods worldwide, according to official estimates. In sub-Saharan Africa, the increase in deaths from malaria and tuberculosis each exceeds the total number of covid deaths. Interestingly, if one takes into account both GDP loss and new public debt, New Zealand is one of the worst affected countries in the world.
Nevertheless, some proponents of lockdowns argue that lockdowns have at least not led to an increase in suicides. They point to a recent US study, published in JAMA, apparently showing a decrease in US suicides in 2020 by 2,700, from 47,500 to 44,800 (see the table above).
But the reality is far different. First, US CDC data shows that 6,900 cases of “intentional or unintentional injuries”, which include suicides, were classified as “covid deaths” (deaths with covid). But more importantly, suicides in the US cover only a fraction of ‘deaths of despair’: the very same JAMA study shows that “unintentional injuries”, “largely driven by drug overdose deaths”, increased by an unprecedented 19,000 to a sad record of 192,000 (see the table above). And if the economic and labor market situation doesn’t recover quickly, this may have been only the beginning.
Finally, this calculation doesn’t even include the dramatic increases in severe depression and attempted suicides, especially in children and young adults, the groups least affected by covid.
Published: April 2021 (upd.) Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Did China stage the early videos of people collapsing in Wuhan?
Already in March 2020, SPR argued that the coronavirus situation appeared to show aspects of a possibly serious pandemic, a mass psychosis, and a psychological (i.e. propaganda) operation.
Since the early days of the pandemic, many people have been wondering if the notorious videos of “people collapsing in Wuhan”, which emerged in late January 2020 (see below), had in fact been staged by the Chinese government to frighten the West into lockdowns and self-destruction. After all, it is argued, such events haven’t been seen anywhere else later on during the pandemic.
For instance, on January 31, 2020, British newspaper The Guardian titled: “A man lies dead in the street: the image that captures the Wuhan coronavirus crisis”. A week before, the British Express titled: “Coronavirus horror: Social media footage shows infected Wuhan residents ‘act like zombies’”.
But an analysis of these videos and their context shows the following:
Contrary to claims that there were “dozens” or even “hundreds” of such videos, there were only about ten such videos, which were shown in various places and in various combinations.
Most of these videos really had nothing to do with covid. Rather, these videos showed drunk people, homeless people, road accidents, unspecified medical emergencies, and even training exercises. Some of these videos were quickly debunked by Western “fact checkers”.
Because of the simultaneous virus outbreak, first responders in Wuhan often already wore protective equipment (the white bio-hazard suits). Thus, to bystanders and to people uploading and sharing the videos, it may have looked like actual “sudden coronavirus deaths.”
In many cases, video titles or descriptions suggested or claimed the videos showed “sudden coronavirus deaths”, but in no case was this suggested or claimed by Chinese authorities; instead, it was social media and Western media promoting this frightening narrative.
It looks like most of these videos were shared internationally not by people close to the Chinese regime, but by people and groups opposed to the Chinese regime (e.g. by ‘Voice of Hong Kong’ and ‘Badiucao’), who wanted to show that the Chinese regime had lost control. The video compilation below, for instance, was published by Taiwan-based news platform TomoNews US.
If any of these videos really showed someone collapsing due to the coronavirus, it may have been due to a sudden cardiac arrest caused by viral myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation), or a major heart attack, stroke, or embolism. Such cases have been observed even in the US and in Germany.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the first English-language mention of the alleged “Chinese whistleblower doctor” Li Wenliang (who later died or disappeared) came from “China Change”, an “NGO” funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government controlled entity that sponsors opposition groups in adversarial countries.
This again might indicate that Western state actors either tried to leverage the situation in China, or tried to “frame” China (the real origin of the virus remaining unknown to this day). In contrast, the Chinese government itself primarily tried to downplay the situation, and continues to do so.
While antibody data indicates that by April 2020, coronavirus prevalence outside of Wuhan city and Hubei province was near zero (despite domestic travel in January 2020), China has experienced repeated local outbreaks and continues to impose extreme lockdown and quarantine measures.
In conclusion, there is currently no evidence that the “collapsing people” videos of January 2020 were a “Sun Tzu style” Chinese psyop. Instead, they may have been part of the “mass psychosis” at the time, leveraged by clickbaiters and hoaxers and Western media, or they may have been part of a Western psyop against China, against the Western population, or both.
Postscript
Chinese coronavirus measures, such as disinfection of public places, construction of dedicated field hospitals and quarantine facilities, and early use of ventilators, were based on epidemic response plans developed after the 2003 SARS epidemic and aimed at preventing aerosol transmission. Although extreme and partially ineffective, these measures weren’t part of a deception, either.
It has been argued that Western lockdowns had been promoted by “Chinese Twitter botnets”. However, while it is true that social media botnets were promoting lockdowns, it remains unclear who was operating these botnets. For instance, during the “Russiagate” campaign, US cybersecurity contractors were running “Russian botnets” to influence US state elections.
Video compilation: “Coronavirus has people keeling over in streets” (January 2020)
Former NKVD chief Nikolay Yezhov got removed from a photograph with Stalin, though not for asking questions about vaccine adverse events (Read more; source of meme)
Published: May 6, 2021 Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Online censorship during the pandemic: situation and solutions.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the well-known manipulation and censorship on major US internet platforms Google/YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia has reached unprecedented levels. The platforms generally claim to enforce WHO and local health authority guidelines, not because they are correct – they were mostly wrong – but because they are deemed “authoritative”.
Some notable examples:
In the United States, YouTube deleted a video of the official Senate testimony of US doctors on the importance of evidence-based early treatment, opposed by the US FDA, NIH and CDC.
In Germany, Google and YouTube silently removed ironic anti-lockdown videos by German TV actors from their search results (a classic Google/YouTube manipulation technique). Prior to that, YouTube had already deleted some of the largest independent German media channels.
In Switzerland, in what may have been a world first, Swiss authorities apparently told YouTube to delete five minutes of a live stream – without notifying the streamer – that showed how Swiss police trapped and detained an independent journalist during an anti-repression protest.
Facebook deleted a group with 120,000 members reporting and discussing covid vaccine adverse events and notoriously adds “vaccines are safe” notes to posts of people mourning the post-vaccination death of a family member.
Wikipedia, whose mostly anonymous editors and administrators have repeatedly been exposed as employees or PR agents of pharmaceutical corporations (or British intelligence operatives), has pushed official misinformation and deleted dissent throughout the pandemic.
The solution to this situation is quite simple, however. Advanced internet users should never use Google search, on any device, unless they want to monitor the current extent of censorship; they should never use the internet without an ad and tracking blocker; and they should always try to use alternatives to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, both as content producers and as consumers.
During the coronavirus pandemic, censorship has affected science itself. For instance, three major journals refused to publish the Danish randomized controlled trial that found no significant effect of face masks against coronavirus infection; another journal refused to publish a meta-analysis on ivermectin-based early treatment that had already been peer-reviewed; and ResearchGate removed a critical review on face masks and deleted the account of its author, a Canadian professor.
The Howard Springs quarantine facility in the Northern Territory of Australia (ABC)
Published: June 9, 2021 (upd.) Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
The high costs of zero covid.
For more than a year already, both Australia and New Zealand have been largely isolated from the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the Australian state of Victoria and its capital city of Melbourne have recently had to impose yet another preemptive lockdown in order to suppress renewed community transmission of the coronavirus.
If they get really unlucky, the citizens of Victoria will have to spend another local winter season in full lockdown. Moreover, many Australians haven’t been allowed to leave the country since early 2020.
Due to repeated failures of the hotel quarantine system for incoming travelers, both New Zealand and Victoria are currently considering, or already planning, a “purpose-built covid quarantine facility” (see example above), already known from places like Vietnam and China.
New Zealand and Australia are also facing a high pressure to quickly vaccinate a very large part of their population, but the vaccines currently in use are already somewhat ‘outdated’ and sub-optimal in terms of their effectiveness against some of the new coronavirus variants, and local reports of blood clots, Guillain-Barré syndrome and other serious vaccine adverse events are mounting.
While it is true that in terms of coronavirus disease, Australia and New Zealand are high-risk populations – due to very high rates of obesity and metabolic disease – the economic and societal costs of lockdowns and isolation have also been substantial. In fact, if one considers both GDP loss and new public debt, New Zealand is one of the worst affected countries in the world. Moreover, in Australia, the number of suicide attempts among children and young adults has doubled.
Meanwhile, China itself is also facing renewed coronavirus outbreaks in several parts of the country, and authorities have again imposed some very strict lockdowns on major cities, despite having already vaccinated hundreds of millions of people – see our updated video gallery (18+) showing recent lockdowns, quarantine facilities and mass vaccinations in Chinese cities.
“Zero covid” essentially means “zero mistakes”, and such a goal was simply unrealistic for most non-island countries in the world (and even for many islands). Furthermore, in early 2020 it was far from certain that an effective vaccine would already become available by the end of the year.
At any rate, the examples of New Zealand and Australia show that “zero covid” is entirely unfeasible without early and strict border controls. Indeed, “zero covid” was unattainable even for most Asian countries, including India, Nepal, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. For instance, Indonesia had a seroprevalence of about 15% by January 2021, comparable to many Western countries.
There are only a few Asian outlier countries remaining, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Mekong countries of Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. In these countries, the coronavirus has been circulating at a low level, but there have so far been no major, nation-wide outbreaks.
Omicron neutralization: vaccination vs. vaccination + infection (Sigal)
Published: December 8, 2021 (upd.) Share on: Telegram / Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Important new data on Omicron neutralization in vaccinated vs. recovered people.
Professor Alex Sigal of the African Health Research Institute in Durban, South Africa, has presented the first data on Omicron neutralization in Pfizer vaccine study participants, both with and without previous infection (see preprint study).
As the figure above shows, Omicron neutralization in vaccinated people without prior infection (red) decreased to very low levels (a 41-fold decline compared to the initial Wuhan D614G variant). In contrast, neutralization in previously infected plus vaccinated people (green) remained relatively high and is “likely to confer protection from severe disease”, according to the authors.
Recovered people without vaccination have not been considered in this study, but previous studies found no significant benefit of vaccination in recovered people. Moreover, a recent Dutch study found that “in contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
Regarding the new Omicron study, three additional aspects are noteworthy:
1) The plasma of vaccinated people was taken on average just 12 days post-vaccination, i.e. at the point of highest antibody levels and neutralization effectiveness (see table below). In people vaccinated months ago, neutralization may no longer be detectable (see updates below).
2) In previously infected people, the plasma was taken a full 417 days post-infection and 27 days post-vaccination, on average (see table below). Despite this, previously infected people still had much higher neutralization levels.
3) In this Pfizer vaccine study, previously infected people had been infected during the first South African wave, which was dominated by the initial Wuhan D614G variant without any antibody escape mutations. However, the second South African wave was dominated by the Beta variant, which features both a class 1 (K417N) and a class 2 (E484K) antibody escape mutation (see table below). Thus, people previously infected with the Beta variant are likely to have even stronger protection against Omicron, which features escape mutations against antibody classes 1, 2, and 3.
This extra-protection may also apply to people in Latin America who were previously infected with the Gamma (Brazilian) variant, but not to people in the US and in Europe who were infected with the Wuhan/D614G (2020), Alpha (spring 2021) or Delta (summer 2021) variant.
In addition, previously infected people may benefit from mucosal and T-cell immunity, which could not be taken into account in the current South African study, either. While it has been reported that PCR-positive hospitalizations in South Africa are currently increasing again, it should be noted that a full 76% of these patients were in fact hospitalized not due to covid.
There have been reports that Omicron might be milder than previous variants. While this would be fantastic news, one should take into account that these reports are based primarily on 1) people in South Africa, most of whom already have natural immunity from previous infection (60% to 80% of the population; only 25% vaccination rate), and 2) non-elderly people (e.g. travelers), in whom covid has always been rather mild anyway (despite relentless propaganda to convince you otherwise).
The question of disease severity can only really be answered once Omicron reaches high-risk groups. In general, the fact that Omicron is able to displace Delta (even in Europe) indicates that Omicron is currently at least as transmissible as Delta, which in turn requires rather high peak viral loads and infectiousness. Unless other mutations reduce host impact, this would not indicate lower virulence. Instead, it is reasonable to assume that virulence may be similar to previous variants.
In conclusion, unless Omicron turns out to be much milder than previous variants, it is evident that current covid vaccines will have to be updated. The fact that current vaccines are no longer effective against Omicron (based on EUA standards) also means that any existing “vaccine passport” schemes and vaccine mandates have become obsolete and have to be suspended immediately.
Ultimately, only widespread natural immunity will be able end the covid pandemic. The fact that millions of “unvaccinated” people are currently being threatened with losing their jobs, regardless of their actual immunity status, can only be described as a crime against humanity. Moreover, the fact that young people have been pressured to take an experimental – and now ineffective – vaccine, against a virus that poses very little risk to them, can only be described as a major medical crime.
Finally, the arrival of immune-escape variants once again highlights the importance of early outpatient treatment of high-risk covid patients, regardless of their vaccination status.
∗∗∗
Update I: A new German analysis confirms 0% neutralization six months after vaccination with Astra-Zeneca, Biontech or Moderna, and only 25% three months after a Biontech booster (vs. 95% against Delta). Furthermore, available monoclonal antibodies show no effectiveness against Omicron.
Update II: A new Swedish Omicron neutralization study in 17 previously-infected hospital workers and 17 recent blood donors in Stockholm found that neutralization was only about 7-fold lower compared to the original Wuhan variant. Given that Stockholm has an infection rate of about 75%, this study again confirms the robust protective effect of naturally-acquired immunity.
Update III: Many news reports argue that the South African, Swedish and German Omicron neutralization studies appear to contradict each other. But as the analysis above shows, this is not the case: rather, the studies differ in terms of previous infections (yes/no) and date of plasma sample (shortly after vaccination vs. six months after vaccination).
Update IV: Independent genetic researchers note that the Omicron variant, with its many spike protein mutations, might in fact have escaped from the Durban lab in South Africa, which has been involved in immune escape and serial passaging cell culture experiments for quite some time.
Update V: A 40-fold reduction in neutralization is not equivalent to a 40-fold reduction in vaccine effectiveness. However, previous studies have shown that “neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection”. Based on the available data, one can estimate that the current Pfizer vaccine will achieve an effectiveness against symptomatic infection of at most 30%. Effectiveness against severe disease may or may not be higher. In the worst case, non-neutralizing antibodies might even enhance infection (ADE).
Figures
A) South African study – participant data
Participant data of the South African Omicron study (Sigal)
B) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Escape Mutations
Coronavirus variants: Escape from antibody classes 1 to 3 (SPR, based on Greaney et al.) Example: K417N describes an amino acid change at codon position 417 from lysine (K) to asparagine (N).
C) Calculated antibody binding to coronavirus variants
Calculated antibody binding to coronavirus variants (Bloom lab)
D) Neutralization vs. vaccine effectiveness
Neutralization vs. protection against Delta and non-Delta (Gardner et al)
Total covid mortality: Sweden vs. Austria (JHU/CSSE)
Updated: January 3, 2022 Published: December 23, 2021 Share on: Twitter / Facebook / Telegram Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Austria, one of the most repressive European countries during the coronavirus pandemic, has recently overtaken Sweden in terms of total covid mortality, showing that almost all government interventions have been ineffective and unjustified.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, Austria has been one of the most repressive European countries, implementing several lockdowns, school closures, far-reaching mask mandates and even an N95/FFP2 mask mandate, record-setting mass PCR testing and contact tracing, as well as early “vaccine passports”. Austria was also the first Western country to impose a “lockdown for the unvaccinated” and the first Western country to announce a general “vaccine mandate”.
In contrast, Sweden has widely been regarded, or indeed criticized, as the least repressive Western country during the coronavirus pandemic, having imposed no lockdowns, no elementary school closures, no mask mandates, no “vaccine passport” (until December), and very limited testing and contact tracing compared to Austria and many other Western countries.
And yet, in December 2021, Austria overtook Sweden in terms of total covid mortality (see chart above). This comes after Austria had reached, in late November, the highest seven-day covid infection rate in the world. The European average covid mortality had already overtaken Swedish covid mortality back in March 2021.
But can Nordic Sweden and Alpine Austria really be compared in a legitimate way? Indeed, they can. To begin with, their population size is quite similar (10.4 million in Sweden vs. 9.0 million in Austria). While the median age in Sweden is slightly lower than in Austria (41.1 vs. 44.4 years; perhaps due to more immigration), the Swedish life expectancy is actually somewhat higher than in Austria (82.4 vs. 81.6 years). Vaccination rates are very similar in Sweden and in Austria (72% vs. 70%).
Interestingly, the population weighted density, which takes urbanization into account, is somewhat higher in Sweden than in Austria (2724 vs. 2191, see map below). The share of single households is also somewhat higher in Sweden than in Austria (40% vs. 36%, both very high figures). Obesity rates are very similar in Sweden and in Austria (20.6% vs. 20.1%). ICU capacity is significantly higher in Austria than in Sweden (5.3 vs. 1.9 beds per 1000 people).
In fact, total covid mortality in Austria and in Sweden may have reached the same level precisely because the two countries are so similar in terms of demographic and health factors. In both countries, the covid population fatality rate (PFR) has reached about 0.15% and is limited primarily to people over 70 years of age (the median age of covid deaths is about 83 years in both countries).
But is it fair to call December 2021 the “judgment day”? Indeed it is, because Sweden has already crossed the “pandemic finish line” and was the first Western country to see the return of influenza, which had been displaced by the coronavirus since March of 2020. Of course, the novel coronavirus will not disappear from Sweden or from anywhere else, and Sweden will certainly see future coronavirus waves, but Sweden has achieved a high population infection rate (about 60% to 75%) and has entered the endemic phase.
Thus, the fact that Austria has now overtaken Sweden in terms of total covid mortality really means that almost every single government intervention in Austria – and almost everywhere else – has been entirely ineffective from an epidemiological and medical perspective, while having caused almost unprecedented social and economic harm.
In particular, it means that lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, N95/FFP2 mask mandates, mass PCR testing and “contact tracing”, as well as “vaccine passports”, have been entirely ineffective and unjustified as interventions to “combat the pandemic”.
Of note, this is not just “post-hoc knowledge”: with the exception of school closures (which are effective against influenza), it had long been known that all of these “interventions”, including masks and contact tracing, are ineffective against respiratory virus epidemics. Concerning face masks and N95/FFP2 masks, the question is not if they are effective in theory or in some lab experiment, but if they make any difference in the real world – and the answer is no.
In fact, in terms of all-cause excess mortality, Austria had surpassed Sweden already several months ago: total pandemic excess mortality currently is 17% in Austria vs. 11% in Sweden. This is primarily because many Swedish deaths happened earlier in the pandemic (in the spring of 2020) and most covid victims were very old (median age of 83); thus, by September 2020, Sweden recorded its lowest mortality in history. (Nevertheless, claims that Sweden has had no or almost no excess mortality are based on an incorrect calculation method; there is no “Swedish mortality miracle”).
The same result has been observed in many other regions throughout the world: In Eastern Europe, Belarus has recorded an average regional excess mortality despite almost no interventions at all; in Latin America, excess mortality in Brazil has been higher than in Chile and Argentina, but lower than in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Colombia and Paraguay; in Asia, lockdowns in India, Indonesia or the Philippines were horrific failures threatening the livelihood of millions of families.
There was only one situation in which lockdowns were a rational intervention: as a preemptive measure in support of early border controls. This situation applied primarily to some islands, such as Australia, New Zealand and Iceland, and possibly to Norway, Finland, Denmark and parts of China (more on these countries below).
Critics of the Swedish approach have often argued that Sweden should only be compared to “its neighbors”. If one compares Sweden to all of its neighbors in the region – Norway, Finland, Denmark, but also Poland and the Baltic states – Sweden again shows an average covid mortality: Poland, Latvia and Lithuania are much higher, Estonia is similar, while Denmark, Finland and Norway are much lower.
But some critics of Sweden insist on comparing Sweden only to Denmark, Finland and Norway. These critics would like to imply that Sweden is a high-mortality outlier, when in reality, it is Denmark, Finland and Norway which are the true outliers, having by far the lowest covid mortality rates among Western countries. But why is this?
It is not, as critics of Sweden would like to imply, because these countries had particularly strict measures. In fact, for the most part, their “stringency index” was even lower than in Sweden, and of course also lower than in repressive countries like Austria.
Instead, three explanations seem plausible.
First, Denmark, Finland and Norway imposed early border controls and could avoid a major unexpected wave in the spring of 2020. “Early” here is a relative term and always depends on when the coronavirus reaches a certain country. Due to the timing of its winter holidays, the Stockholm area unknowingly imported the coronavirus directly from early covid hotspots in Alpine skiing resorts near Italy, which was not the case in other Nordic countries or even in other regions of Sweden. (In the famous case of Uruguay in South America, the first covid wave hit not until November 2020).
Second, and in the same context, other Nordic countries imposed preemptive lockdowns in support of early border controls that really may have helped disrupt early infections. But a lockdown is ‘preemptive’ only if there have been either no confirmed infections at all or only a very small number of infections that can still be contained before the virus gets aerosolized.
Third, and most fundamentally, Norway and Finland have by far the lowest population weighted densityin Europe (910 in Norway and 986 in Finland, vs. 2724 in Sweden and 6785 in Britain; see the map below), which may have helped slow the spread of coronavirus infections. In this regard, Sweden is indeed closer to countries like Austria (2191) and the Netherlands (2426) than to its direct geographic neighbors Finland and Norway.
In fact, in Western Europe, there is a striking correlation between population weighted density – which may influence both the speed of virus transmission and the amplitude of infection waves – and covid mortality per country (see map below). This correlation does not apply, however, to Denmark, which has a low covid mortality but an average population weighted density (3434).
At the global level, high population weighted density (PWD) might help explain strong covid waves in Britain, Spain and Italy, Turkey, South America (including Mexico) and South Africa, but not (so far) in Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Low PWD could help explain the slow spread of the coronavirus in Norway, Finland, Indochina, and parts of Black Africa (see map below).
In addition, Scandinavian countries have the highest percentage of single households in the world, which might be seen as a kind of “natural quarantine” that helps protect family members: 45% in Denmark, 41% in Finland, 40% in Sweden, and 39% in Norway. In Austria, it is 36%, in Japan 34%, in Italy 31%, in the US 28%, in Spain and in Portugal 19%, and in Brazil 12%.
Coming back to the comparison of Sweden and Austria, one factor that worked against Austria was the failure of covid vaccines: if covid vaccines had provided strong long-term protection, Austria could have avoided the high covid mortality in the winter of 2021/22. On the other hand, in the spring of 2020, even optimists hadn’t expected covid vaccines becoming available before autumn 2021.
The failure of covid vaccines is also a major problem for low-covid countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and China, which now are in a rather uncertain position.
While all of the interventions imposed by Austria and other repressive countries failed, are there any potentially effective interventions that have not been adopted?
A few options may be mentioned.
First, research and use of repurposed early treatment drugs should have been a major priority to reduce hospitalizations (especially given the uncertainties regarding vaccine protection).
Second, dedicated covid hospital facilities should have been created to avoid widespread in-hospital transmission (in some countries, including Sweden, the UK and the US, such facilities were indeed created, but they remained largely unused).
Third, given their low covid risk, offering voluntary, medically supervised live virus infection to children and young healthy adults may have made sense to rapidly build up a natural immunity shield, protect high-risk groups (including parents), and ensure smooth education.
Fourth, while masks have been a complete failure (as was already known before the pandemic), indoor ventilation to prevent aerosol transmission might have been one of the most effective interventions (with >99% of all transmission occurring indoors). Then again, living rooms and class rooms cannot be turned into airplane cabins.
Fifth, the media should have supported the calm management of the pandemic, fostering social cohesion and mindfulness, instead of inciting panic and hysteria, which caused large parts of the public to overestimate covid mortality by a factor of one hundred. The many “dashboards” and “live tickers” may well have been counterproductive, too.
Sixth, we may have to recognize that societies with a life expectancy of over 80 years and obesity rates of over 20% are inherently susceptible to events like the coronavirus pandemic. Care home residents, who accounted for about 50% of Western covid deaths, should have deserved a more humane treatment during their last remaining months on earth.
Needless to say, most Western health authorities have not yet acknowledged that their entire approach to the pandemic has been a complete failure. As a case in point, the Austrian health minister in early December claimed that the most recent Austrian lockdown had been effective in breaking the winter wave, but independent analysts quickly pointed out that infections had decreased simultaneously in neighboring countries without a lockdown.
In conclusion, the comparison of Austria and Sweden conclusively shows that a calm, low-intervention and patient-focused approach to the pandemic has been best. In contrast, epidemiologically irrational strategies, such as “zero covid” and “no covid”, have caused unprecedented social, political and economic damage at an almost civilizational scale.
You have been reading: Judgment day: Sweden vindicated. An analysis by Swiss Policy Research.
Postscript
In the United States, California – one of the most restrictive states – has recently overtaken Florida – one of the least restrictive states – in terms of age-adjusted all-cause excess mortality:
California vs. Florida: age-adjusted excess mortality (US Mortality)
Figures
A) Population weighted density in Western Europe (2015)
The analysis above quotes 2020 figures, while the following map shows 2015 figures.
Population weighted density in Western Europe (2015) (WorldPop)
B) Global population weighted density (2020)
Global population weighted density (2020) (WorldPop)
C) Excess mortality per country (January 2020 to December 2021)
Excess mortality per country (January 2020 to December 2021) (Economist)
D) Daily covid tests per 1000 people
Daily covid tests per 1000 people in Austria, Sweden and Britain.
Published: Sept. 9, 2020 Updated: Sept. 18, 2020 Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
The WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks, published in the medical journal The Lancet in June 2020, has been instrumental in shifting global facemask policies during the covid pandemic. However, the meta-study, which claimed a risk reduction of 80% with facemasks, is seriously flawed on several levels and should be retracted.
Results of WHO meta-study on facemasks (The Lancet)
A. General flaws
Of the 29 studies analyzed by the Lancet meta-study, seven studies are unpublished and non-peer-reviewed observational studies that should not be used to guide clinical practice according to the medRxiv disclaimer (references 3, 4, 31, 36, 37, 40 and 70; see table above).
Of the 29 studies considered by the meta-study, only four are about the SARS-CoV-2 virus; the other 25 studies are about the SARS-1 virus or the MERS virus, both of which have very different transmission characteristics: they were transmitted almost exclusively by severely ill hospitalized patients and not by community transmission.
Of the four studies relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, two were misinterpreted by the Lancet meta-study authors (refs. 44 and 70), one is inconclusive (ref. 37), and one is about N95 (FFP2) respirators and not about medical masks or cloth masks (see detailed analysis below).
The Lancet meta-study is used to guide global facemask policy for the general population. However, of the 29 studies considered by the meta-study, only three are classified as relating to a non-health-care (i.e. community) setting. Of these three studies, one is misclassified (ref. 50, relating to masks in a hospital environment), one showed no benefit of facemasks (ref. 69), and one is a poorly designed retrospective study about SARS-1 in Beijing based on telephone interviews (ref. 74). None of these studies refer to SARS-CoV-2.
The authors of the Lancet meta-study acknowledge that the certainty of the evidence regarding facemasks is “low” as all of the studies are observational and none is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The WHO itself admitted that its updated facemask policy guidelines were based not on new evidence but on “political lobbying”.
In view of these shortcomings, University of Toronto epidemiology professor Peter Jueni called the WHO study “methodologically flawed” and “essentially useless”.
B. Study misinterpretations
As mentioned above, several studies have been misinterpreted by the authors of the meta-study. All of the misinterpretations resulted in falsely claiming or exaggerating a benefit of facemasks. In the following, only the four studies relating to SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed. (HCW: health care worker)
Heinzerling et al. (ref. 44): The meta-study claims that 0 of 31 HCW wearing a facemask and 3 of 6 HCW not wearing a facemask got infected. This is not correct: the study showed that 0 of 3 HCW wearing a facemask and 3 of 34 HCW not wearing a facemask got infected. This result was not statistically significant (p=0.73). Moreover, of the 3 HCW who got infected, one reported wearing a facemask “most of the time”, but the meta-study classified this HCW as “not wearing a facemask”.
Wang et al. (ref. 41): This study, which did show a benefit of facemasks, was about N95 (FFP2) respirators in a health-care setting, not about medical masks or cloth masks.
Wang et al. (ref. 70): The meta-study claims that 1 of 1286 HCW wearing a facemask and 119 of 4036 wearing “no facemask” got infected. This is not correct: according to the study, 78.3% (94/120) of infected HCW were in fact wearing a surgical mask, and only 20.8% (25/120) did not wear any mask when exposed to the source of infection. The “1 of 1286 HCW” mentioned in the meta-study refers to HCW wearing an N95 (FFP2) respirator, not a medical or cloth mask.
Burke et al. (ref. 37): This study had no results relating to the use of facemasks.
Non-covid studies were also misinterpreted or misrepresented by the the Lancet meta-study authors. For instance, in the case of the non-covid study with the allegedly biggest impact of masks (Kim et al. (ref. 49) about N95 respirators in a hospital with MERS patients), the meta-study authors incorrectly mixed serological and PCR results, again exaggerating the benefit of (N95) masks. The actual results of the Kim et al. study were not statistically significant (p=0.159).
In an additional section, the WHO meta-study evaluated studies on the benefit of “social distancing” measures. However, several independent experts have shown that this section is seriously flawed, too, as the authors again misinterpreted several studies and made several statistical errors. As with the studies on facemasks, all of these mistakes resulted in falsely claiming or exaggerating a benefit of “social distancing” measures.
As shown in this analysis, the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks and social distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be retracted. Health authorities may want to reconsider their covid policy guidelines.
Original study: Chu et al., Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, The Lancet, June 2020, Volume 395, Issue 10242, P1973-1987.
Published: November 18, 2020 Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
The Danish randomized controlled trial on the real-world efficacy of face masks against coronavirus infection – the first of its kind – has now been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As expected, the trial found no statistically significant benefit of wearing a face mask. The study used “high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%”.
For political reasons, three major journals had previously refused to publish the Danish study.
Meanwhile, US researcher Yinon Weiss has updated his charts on mask mandates and coronavirus infections in various countries and US states. The charts indicate that mask mandates have made no difference, or may even have been counterproductive.
People who want to avoid a coronavirus infection must avoid situations in which they can get infected. If they cannot avoid such situations, and if they belong to a high-risk group, they should discuss prophylactic and early treatment options with their doctor, which according to international studies may reduce the risk of severe disease and hospitalization by up to 90%.
The Danish study: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers. A Randomized Controlled Trial. AIM 2020.
“It’s just a mask”: Global impact of the face mask folly (K. Birb)
Published: August 2021 (upd.) Share on: TG / TW / FB Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
It has been known for decades that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. Why has much of the world nonetheless fallen for the face mask folly? Twelve reasons.
1) The droplet model
Many health authorities have relied on the obsolete ‘droplet model’ of virus transmission. If this model were correct, face masks would indeed work. But in reality, respiratory droplets – which by definition cannot be inhaled – play almost no role in virus transmission. Instead, respiratory viruses are transmitted via much smaller aerosols, as well as, possibly, some object surfaces. Face masks don’t work against either of these transmission routes.
2) The Asian paradox
During the first year of the pandemic, several East Asian countries had a very low coronavirus infection rate, and many health experts falsely assumed that this was due to face masks. In reality, it was due to very rapid border controls in some countries neighboring China as well as a combination of metabolic and immunologic factors reducing transmission rates. Nevertheless, many East Asian countries eventually got overwhelmed by the coronavirus, too (see charts below).
3) The Czech mirage
In the spring of 2020, the Czech Republic was one of the first European countries that introduced face masks. Because the Czech infection rate initially stayed low, many health experts falsely concluded that this was due to the masks. In reality, most of Eastern Europe simply missed the first wave of the epidemic. A few months later, the Czech Republic had the highest infection rate in the world, but by then, much of the world had already introduced face mask mandates.
4) Fake science
For decades, studies have shown that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. But with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and increasing political pressure (see below), suddenly studies appeared claiming the opposite. In reality, these studies were a mixture of confounded observational data, unrealistic modelling and lab results, and outright fraud. The most influential fraudulent study certainly was the WHO-commissioned meta-study published in The Lancet.
5) Asymptomatic transmission
Another factor contributing to the implementation of mask mandates was the notion of ‘asymptomatic transmission’. The idea was that everybody should be wearing a mask because even people without symptoms might spread the virus. The importance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission is still a matter of debate – up to half of all transmission might occur prior to symptom onset –, but either way, face masks simply don’t work against aerosol transmission.
6) Political pressure
Several political factors contributed to the implementation of mask mandates. First, some politicians simply wanted to “do something” against the pandemic; second, some politicians thought face masks might have a “psychological effect” and might “remind” citizens to stay cautious (if anything, it had the opposite effect: creating a ‘false sense of security’); third, some politicians used mask mandates to enforce compliance and pressure the population into accepting mass vaccination.
In addition, there was a vicious circle involving science and politics: politicians claimed to “follow the science”, but scientists followed politics. For instance, the WHO admitted that their updated mask guidelines were in response to “political lobbying”, not new evidence. The most influential lobby group was “Masks For All”, founded by a “Young Leader” of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
7) The media
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the ‘mass media’ amplified the fraudulent science and the political pressure driving mask mandates. Only some independent media outlets and some truly independent experts questioned the validity of the underlying evidence. However, their voices got suppressed as dubious “fact checking” organizations eagerly enforced official guidelines and throttled or censored many articles and videos critical of face masks.
8) “Surgeons wear masks”
Surgeons wear masks, so they must be effective, right? This was another notion contributing to the face mask misunderstanding. In reality, surgeons wear masks not against viruses, but against much larger bacteria, but more importantly, studies have long shown that even surgeons’ masks make no difference in terms of bacterial wound infections.
9) “Masks suppressed the flu”
“Masks suppressed the flu, so they obviously work.” This was another very common claim in favor of masks. While it is true that the flu (i.e. influenza viruses) disappeared in the spring of 2020 and remained absent throughout the coronavirus pandemic, masks had nothing to do with it.
This is evident as the flu disappeared even in states without masks, lockdowns and school closures – such as Sweden, Florida and Belarus – while the flu hadn’t disappeared during earlier flu epidemics and pandemics, despite widespread mask use (e.g. during the 2019 flu epidemic in Japan).
Instead, influenza viruses disappeared globally because they were temporarily displaced by the more infectious novel coronavirus (so-called viral interference, known from previous pandemics); for the same reason, new coronavirus variants repeatedly displaced existing variants, often within weeks. Indeed, in countries that had reached very high levels of population immunity against the coronavirus, the flu returned by summer 2021 (e.g. in India at 80% population immunity).
10) Misleading memes
To convince low-IQ social media users of the effectiveness of face masks, several unscientific memes were created. The most notorious one probably was the “peeing into your pants” meme, shared by many ‘health experts’ (really). Many of these memes exploited the fact that most people simply don’t realize how small and ubiquitous viral aerosols really are.
11) Doubling down
After mask mandates had been implemented globally and billions of dollars had been spent on masks, it soon became obvious – once more – that masks simply don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics (see charts below). But at that point, neither politicians, nor ‘health experts’, nor duped citizens who had to wear them for months wanted to admit this anymore.
Instead, some ‘health authorities’ doubled down and enforced outdoor masking (even on beaches), double-masking, or N95/FFP2 masking, to no avail. The one novel scientific insight produced during the coronavirus pandemic was that even N95/FFP2 mask mandates have made no difference at all.
12) Sweden: The exception that proved the rule
Only very few countries in the world have resisted the face mask folly. The most famous example is probably Sweden (see charts below), which has also resisted the lockdown experiment. Naturally, Swedish coronavirus mortality has remained below the European average. But the many vicious attacks against Sweden by much of the international media showed just how difficult it has been to escape the global madness and follow the real science during this bizarre pandemic.
The following charts show that infections have been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact (charts: IanMSC).
“The more masks fail, the more we need them.” (IanMSC)
You have been reading: The Face Mask Folly in Retrospect. An analysis by Swiss Policy Research.
