At what stage do people need to draw the line that preventing a risk outweighs the benefit of living with it?
I’m talking specifically about the draconian mandates and lockdowns that the world has seen in the last 18 months over the Wuhan virus, also called COVID-19.
Governments and public health departments have followed guidance from the World Health Organisation in applying blanket measures to eliminate the virus.
Such measures include closing down many businesses, closing borders, restricting travel, and requiring medical tests to confirm that someone is not infected.
You now have governments urging people to take an experimental vaccine by dangling in front of them the prospect of returning to a normal life.
However, you have seen in the media that these measures have delivered mixed results. Different countries and regions have seen the number of deaths and infections vary.
There is no clear trend as to what works and if it is even necessary. Meanwhile, governments and medical and scientific authorities are pointing fingers at each other, accusing them of failures that may be well out of their control.
The media has also fanned the fear (and also the debacle) with daily updates of numbers of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths. They have used these numbers to create fear and hopelessness.
I tried to block myself from these heart-rending broadcasts over the past year. My focus was on the numbers and their risk control measures.
What I found disturbed me.
I want to say upfront; I am not a medical expert.
But I have knowledge in statistics and risk analysis. I also understand how the publication industry works, and its shortcomings.
Misplaced trust and unrealistic standards
I believe that the health and medical professions are among the most trusted worldwide. They are on the other end of the spectrum to politicians, used car salespeople, lawyers, and the mainstream media.
Perhaps the trust they have accumulated causes them to hold to a very perfectionistic standard.
You can see this in the way they set goals in controlling this virus outbreak. Most public health authorities are focusing on elimination rather than bringing it to a controllable level.
This is where my doubts begin regarding their practices.
The transmission rate of a virus and its severity are two separate issues. From a pragmatic level, a society can deal with a less severe but infectious virus.
The Wuhan virus initially appeared to be both severe and infectious, as footage from China emerged showing people falling over in the streets. These footages are now considered highly suspect. People did not fall in the streets in other parts of the world.
As the media began to air the statistics live on their news broadcasts, the numbers began to emerge that this virus was infectious but not severe.
The number of deaths currently totals just over 4.13 million people from 192 million positive cases, based on Worldometer at 9pm AEST on Wednesday, 21 July. Statistics suggest the probability of survival for people under the age of 65 is no less than 99%.
Now, I have dug deeper into the numbers. My findings cause me to have further doubts about the credibility of public health authorities.
The first is the death count. The classification of a death from this virus includes comorbidities or associated causes.
Furthermore, in the US, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) quietly released a statement on 30 August 2020. It states that the sole cause of the registered deaths listed under this virus is only 6%. The official death count overstates the actual severity of this virus.
I am not arguing that the death count is inflated by 16-fold. It is possible that the virus exacerbates other conditions leading to death.
My concern is that this is a little-known fact because the authorities and the media did not take the time to explain it to the public. Knowing this would allay much of the concerns.
There was clearly no need for control measures such as those we have all experienced.
The second is the use of PCR tests. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, publicly stated the PCR test is not appropriate for the purpose of testing for this virus.
Moreover, the user can calibrate the sensitivity of a PCR test. The cycle threshold for a PCR test should typically be no more than 25. Calibrating it to more than 35 can lead to false positives as it will pick up dead viral particles in the sample.
The NSW Health Pathology Department admits on their website to using cycle thresholds of 40–45. This brings into question their official statistics and their justification for a lockdown across Greater Sydney that will last for at least five weeks.
The Victorian Health website stated last year that they included false positives in their official statistics, while not informing these individuals of their test result. The updated guidelines effective 9 April 2021 no longer includes this.
The third is the public health department’s dogmatic belief in their own measures. They believe in their own practices and have aggressively shut down those who question or dissent, even using ad hominems (selfish people, anti-vaxxers, science deniers) to push their stance.
Society is neither a hospital nor a medical clinic. To achieve zero infections or deaths is a pie-in-the-sky ideal. They ignore the damage to the broader community.
Many of you have heard about how those infected have lasting health problems and have a much higher risk of dying. I am not going to argue against that. Many diseases lead to chronic damage.
How to Survive Australia’s Biggest Recession in 90 Years. Download your free report and learn more.
The looming economic fallout and lower life expectancy
Actuaries have concluded that economic prosperity is a major key to why people live longer in developed countries. They can access better facilities, allowing them to enjoy happier and healthier lives.
Lockdowns may reduce virus transmissions due to less social contact. However, it destroys businesses and also increases the mental stress of individuals. Furthermore, many may delay medical check-ups either due to their own will or because hospitals advise them not to.
The chronic impact is huge.
With the rise in small businesses and household bankruptcies, this kicks a massive hole in the economy. Households face rising domestic violence and child abuse cases. Poverty, joblessness, and misery will soon follow. What will that do to life expectancies worldwide?
I believe that the draconian measures by the government, advised by the public health departments, have damaged society more than they did good.
The remedy is similarly pathetic.
Governments have splurged on bailing out businesses and households. However, they will sink deeper into debt. Borrowing more from the central banks will drive our already fragile financial system into further strain.
Who will pay for it? Yes, we the taxpayers.
In times like these, you need to protect yourself not just from the perspective of your health. I see precious metals, real estate, and non-central bank cryptocurrencies to be refuges. The key is to try and avoid taking on debt to accumulate these. You want to have no strings attached in this increasingly ailing financial system.
Stay safe, stay sane!
God bless,
 |
Brian Chu,
Editor, The Daily Reckoning Australia
PS: Our publication The Daily Reckoning is a fantastic place to start your investment journey. We talk about the big trends driving the most innovative stocks on the ASX. Learn all about it here.
