As a result of looking into the science and data of vaccines, I stumbled across the following interviews that mostly focus on the data surrounding the effects of lockdowns, and the data isn't good.

In this interview, Dr. Reid Sheftall uses NHS and CDC data to demonstrate that lockdowns have had no effect at all on rates of transmission, infection, or death, while at the same time causing enormous health, social, and economic damage.

Near the end of this video, they explore some of the possible motives behind the initial responses in China with an eye towards how economically and socially destructive lockdowns have been for the west. My own interpretation is, was this an act of psychological/social warfare? Is it possible that China predicted the West response to this so accurately? Who is benefiting? Who is better off now? Who is worse off?

In this interview, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick discusses the same effects, with more of a focus on the number of deaths caused by lockdowns.

Sheftall has an active Twitter account on which he posts a lot of good information: https://twitter.com/rsheftall

Near the end of this video, they explore some of the possible motives behind the initial responses in China with an eye towards how economically and socially destructive lockdowns have been for the west. My own interpretation is, was this an act of psychological/social warfare? Is it possible that China predicted the West response to this so accurately? Who is benefiting? Who is better off now? Who is worse off?

As Gordon Chang pointed out - regardless of whether you think Covid was developed as a bio-weapon, leaked accidentally, or evolved naturally, you can't escape the conclusion that it functions fine as a bio-weapon.

It has destroyed economies, redefined political systems, influenced elections, dramatically boosted surveillance programs, and crushed protests in HK and Xin Jiang.

As such, all these Gain of Function experiments on viruses should be seen for what they are - biological weapons developments. I would argue they are dangerous and unnecessary. None of that research did anything to prevent Covid - it quite possibly caused it.

Malcolm Kendrick makes some good points - unfortunately the 'making of good points' has been banned until further notice. He mentions up front that he knew he would be slammed for saying these things - and duly was.

This is all down to the 'Listen to the Experts/Science' mantra we've been hearing, which itself is based on a false premise. What they really mean is listen to a few select scientists such as WHO investigator Peter Daszak and the Proximal Origins authors (Lipkin, Holmes, Garry, Andersen, Rambaut) with their pro-China, pro-lockdown, pangolin/wet market/couldn't possibly have been a lab-leak theory - then vilify the rest as conspiracy theorists.

The other thing, as we discussed before, dealing with Covid goes way beyond scientific experts.

Covid is a socio-political phenomenon that emanated from/involves China. Any scientist that's being honest (hard to find, admittedly) will acknowledge that this is a major piece of the puzzle that's outside their expertise. It involves socio-political experts - or people who have experience of the CCP's methods (we can count ourselves in this group). Ask any of those guys about whether they think China is a benevolent, "open and transparent" force that should be blindly trusted at their word - they're gonna laugh in your face.

If you get that piece of the puzzle wrong - you get the whole thing wrong - with catastrophic consequences.

Dealing with Covid involves:
(a) Thinking it through - beyond tomorrow's news cycle
(b) input from a range of experts - not just scientists who are on the take from China.

We need economists, civil rights experts, social workers, political sociologists, and even philosophers - maybe especially philosophers - given what's at stake is an ethics framework of the future.

Not sure if i agree with their discussion on masks - though i defend their right to have it. The host says something like 'All the scientific studies point to masks being ineffective' - that's not a correct statement. In fact there have been lots of studies, including pre-Covid, saying masks are effective.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/05/04/2003735785

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/05/04/2003735785

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/04/27/13993003.01260-2020

https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html

https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-si...

There is also the example of Taiwan, and other Asian countries, where masks were worn from the get-go.

Are masks a magic bullet? Probably not. Can they stop Covid if it's already running rampant? Maybe not. But it seems like commonsense that if i have Covid and i cough - then that virus, which is carried in droplets, is gonna spread less if i am wearing a mask. Furthermore they are cheap and accessible to every person on the planet - unlike vaccines.

Yeah, I also took notice of that take on masks. Just seeing the various demonstrations over the months of how much masks reduce the snot, spit, and other body body fluids that one spews out with a sneeze makes me seriously question any stand that masks aren't helpful.

There is also one general reality that wasn't addressed in either of those interviews, and that is why the infection and death rates are so much higher in the US, Brazil, and some European countries than they are in any East Asian country. The main differences are that the East Asian countries, with an eye towards Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan, have had far higher uses of masks and for more stringent lockdowns. If masks and lockdowns don't work, then what accounts for these differences in infection?

So I do have some skepticism about some of these claims, but at least they're trying to have a science-based discussion. If the mainstream media would engage in the discussion, then maybe we'd start moving beyond the 'just trust us' expectations.

The argument about lockdowns is different from masks because it involves other factors that can only be calculated over time.

Apart from the things they mentioned (lack of attention to other health issues, economic fallout), lockdowns represent a major intrusion of the state into our lives. This is the one that worries me the most - the precedent-setting of state authorities ordering people around like a totalitarian regime - isolating them, locking them down, and fining/jailing dissenters to enforce compliance.

As we discussed before, Covid has fast-forwarded us into a 'Brave New World' type future. We need to be alert to human rights being junked in the name of a 'crisis' for which we still don't know how it started. Nor does it look like anyone in the media has the slightest interest in finding out. (That's disturbing in itself)

For example, let's, using Occam's razor, say the most likely/simplest explanation is true - Covid started due to a lack of security at WIV or another lab in Wuhan.

As a result of that lack of security at one lab, the entire world is now being forced to accept dramatically increased state-security over their lives as well as a comprehensive crackdown on human rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy.

This is an interesting article - unfortunately behind a paywall. Here are a few quotes:

"This pandemic is not the Spanish flu. Data is now telling us that it is not even in the league of the Hong Kong flu."

"In May, modellers had said Sweden would experience more than 100,000 additional deaths from COVID this year, with 96,000 additional deaths by July if lockdowns were not imposed. (However), there will be about 4500 additional deaths this year, a far cry from the models"

"Sweden’s average two-year death rate in 2020 will be around 0.92 per cent, the second lowest in the past 10 years."

"...community-wide cordons have been used only once in the past 500 years: for Ebola in 2014 in Africa. But only “very small-scale cordons” — comparable to quarantines — were found to be effective by an evaluation, not the larger-scale lockdowns."

Interestingly, the writer, SANJEEV SABHLOK, was an economist in the notorious Daniel Andrews' government of Victoria. He resigned three months ago "to protest against disproportionate public health measures by Daniel Andrews that had led to a police state".