We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” David Nabarro told The Spectator in an interview aired on Oct. 8.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
[ZH: How long before this video is removed by Twitter?] Nabarro pointed to the collateral damage that lockdowns are having worldwide, especially among poorer populations.
“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world because their markets have got dented. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. Seems that we may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it,” Nabarro said.
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe actually,” he added. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember - lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接 https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html Nabarro isn’t the only scientist opposing lockdowns. A number of medical or public health scientists and medical practitioners have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which states that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.” The signatories include: “Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University and a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.”
“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the declaration states.
With few exceptions, world leaders followed in the footsteps of the Chinese communist regime when responding to the outbreak of the virus, imposing unprecedented lockdowns. Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, did not experience an adverse outcome compared to some locales and nations that did. In the United States, President Donald Trump delegated the decisions on lockdown measures to the governors of individual states, but has pushed for the economy to be reopened, and lockdowns lifted. As William Anderson recently wrote for The Mises Institute,lockdowns only serve the progressive political class...
We have to understand that the political classes and their media have a vested interest in the lockdown status quo, and that includes regular provision of what only can be called disinformation. The mainstream media this past summer dutifully reported a highly questionable (I use that term charitably) report that the Sturgis Bike Rally in South Dakota led to more than a quarter million covid infections and more than $12 billion of medical costs. It should have been obvious on its face that the report was deeply flawed, yet in their desire to fuel the covid-is-killing-us narrative, journalists took this too-good-to-be-true story and ran with it.
As for politicians, the covid crisis has been a godsend for those governmental executives and bureaucrats who see constitutional restrictions that limit their authority as mere obstacles to be easily swept away. Governors such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gavin Newsom of California, and Tom Wolfe of Pennsylvania have received adoring coverage in the media for seizing and employing dictatorial powers, Whitmer even unilaterally deciding that the sale of garden seeds in stores was illegal. Cuomo’s decision to force the housing of covid-19 patients in nursing homes led to the deaths of thousands of people, yet his national media coverage is uniformly positive.
Contrast the affirmative news coverage of Cuomo with the barrage of media attacks on Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Noem has emphasized personal responsibility and did not attempt mass closures of schools and businesses in the state, and the mainstream media erupted with fury. That South Dakota has come through this pandemic relatively well does not matter with the media, as the only acceptable action (to mainstream and elite journalists) in response to covid is for governors to single-handedly seize power and lock down their citizens.
Keep in mind that the real losses that Americans suffered because of the heavy-handed governmental response to the covid outbreak are permanent. As Robert Higgs so eloquently pointed out in Crisis and Leviathan, governments often create crises or, at the very least, they manipulate events such as natural disasters and use them as opportunities to expand governmental powers. Even after the crises end, governments keep some of their newly self-granted powers—and most people raise little or no concern even when government has curtailed more of their freedoms.
那你说论点，论据和中间的论证逻辑哪点有问题啊，别搞什么政治标签，就事论事。
一个人得有屁用，一个数据点没意义的
自己不出门，自己没得过就出来忽悠的，基本是心坏。
再次暴露了数学大概只是小学文化程度，一个是线性，一个是指数，拿来相提并论。
科学的讨论问题，非要自己得吗？那做癌症研究的医生都要哭死了。
哈哈哈哈，你好犀利。 死亡重症率还要和年龄一起看。比如年轻人，小孩，基本是没感的。所以我同意focused protection。 这些低风险的就该全开。高风险的社会帮助，保护起来。
对，我也同意focus protection，不能搞一刀切，重点保护高危人群
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Two-deaths-a-day-S-F-drug-overdoses-fueled-by-15635199.php 旧金山到今年8月，overdose暴增，死了460人以上，新冠死了120个。 你说精神病还好？ 大多数人是没法wfh的，一刀切的lockdown不解决问题，而且制造更多问题，一旦解封就得爆。
虽然世卫组织臭名昭著，但党国还是喜欢的。
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/who-flip-flops-urges-world-leaders-stop-using-lockdowns-fight-covid-contagion
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html
Nabarro isn’t the only scientist opposing lockdowns.
The signatories include: “Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University and a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.” With few exceptions, world leaders followed in the footsteps of the Chinese communist regime when responding to the outbreak of the virus, imposing unprecedented lockdowns. Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, did not experience an adverse outcome compared to some locales and nations that did. In the United States, President Donald Trump delegated the decisions on lockdown measures to the governors of individual states, but has pushed for the economy to be reopened, and lockdowns lifted.
As William Anderson recently wrote for The Mises Institute, lockdowns only serve the progressive political class...
同意，自己家来一波试试不就完了，何必在这叽叽歪歪理论探讨，实践才出真知。得完了还能在这发帖的才有资格吹牛B。
她觉着都零点几了，小于1的都可忽略不计
来，我们两个拿文凭出来一起晒怎么样？ 还有你拿过的签证，怎么拿的卡，卡的类别，一起晒怎么样？
其实这就是忽悠别人的人，我最痛恨这种人，见一次打一次。
他本人又不出门，躲要家里，保护的好好的，网上发帖说是感冒。只比较结果，根本不考虑治疗手段，药物还有感染人群的不同。作过统计的随便一个人都知道的BASIC，要先统一条件。
This. Take my upvote!
这位网友说你小学文化确实不对，毕竟小学没有教过指数，但是高中肯定教过了。 你晒文凭的动作真的二。一个事实对不对，不会因为你的文凭比别人高而改变。我很好奇，什么样的学位会发给一个不知道数量级，不知道指数和线性区别的人，哈哈哈。
你导师或者论文答辩的时候有说，虽然你的论据和论证都没问题，但是结论我有点不能接受，所以我见你一次打你一次？