Now is the time to put these prediction into print.
Introduction to this series is here.
The predictions are here.
Why now?
I’ve been writing about the devastation caused by the shutdowns for just under 2 years. Have been mulling over these predictions for well over a year.
Why didn’t I post these thoughts a year ago?
Publishing them in the spring of 2021 would have left most people thinking I was out in cuckoo crazy land.
Two jokes making the rounds today describe how things have changed over the last year.
First – What is the difference between those crazy conspiracy theories and news headlines? About three weeks.
Second – Maybe it is about time to consider apologizing to your conspiracy spouting acquaintances since so many things they whispered to you have come true.
Enough news has emerged about the devastation generated by government policies that this discussion is now reasonable.
Why not wait another six months or a year?
I suppose I could wait till later this year or sometime in 2023 to make some estimates about what will eventually be the consensus of the destruction caused by federal and state policies. The danger is waiting too long could put me in the position of predicting what has already become common knowledge and a general consensus.
So a year ago was too early and six months from now might be too late. So now is the time.
How long with it take to develop highly persuasive evidence?
There are some news reports now pointing towards what I believe will become the general consensus but those are not yet widely accepted. Lots of researchers will have to spend lots of time digging through lots of data before large numbers of persuasive reports with statistically valid numbers can be produced.
This leads to one more prediction:
8. It will take ten years to firmly quantify the full extent of damage caused by government policies.
Extended research by honest analysts who are able to access honest statistics will be necessary to quantify the damage.
Die ‘from’ or die ‘with’ covid
Getting to accurate numbers will require sorting out official statistics which are polluted by government policies to intentionally count people who are sick or died with Covid is if they got sick or died from Covid.
Many news reports and anecdotal data suggests that people admitted to a hospital for a clearly non-Covid problem are tested positive and then count as a Covid admission, or Covid illness, or Covid death.
The stereotypical report (possibly apocryphal) is the person who died from massive brain injury incurred ten seconds after flying off a motorcycle accident getting Covid listed as the cause of death.
Excess deaths
This will also require researchers to separate out people who suffered or died from a particular cause but their illness or death was caused by government policy.
For example, if the government-ordered prohibition on screening for cancer in early 2020 resulted in someone who had detectable cancer not getting tested for six months or a year and then subsequently dying from cancer, what was the real cause of death? If there is a high probability their cancer would have been detected in early 2020 and if proper treatment had actually been available, there is a high probability they would have had a normal life expectancy.
On the other hand, if screening was banned or proper treatment was not available because it was deemed by a government bureaucrats as “elective” then the person probably had a dramatically shorter life expectancy than otherwise. In that case, the lockdown was the actual cause of death.
That reminds me of sad situations I read about multiple times in 2020. One example was a person early in their efforts to kick a life-threatening drug addiction who was not able to get in-person counseling sessions. That person went back to drugs and died short time later.
Group sessions in a zoom call did not work for a lot of people. As result there are people who slipped back into their drug habit and died.
The question is whether those people died from drug abuse directly or whether the government prohibition on getting treatment push them over the edge. They had a good shot at survival. Wasn’t a sure thing but they had a chance. I contend it was a willful government policy which killed them.
This issue is described by the concept of “excess deaths.” How many more people died than would otherwise not have died because of some intervening factor?
Epidemiologists and statisticians have the skill to sort through the data. With time the number of excess deaths can be pulled out of the underlying trends. With additional analysis and research the data can be extracted from the slanted, intentional misreporting.
Variety of damages to investigate.
The harm which will eventually be quantified is going to include but not be limited to:
- health impact of avoided or delayed medical treatment,
- health impact of skipped screening tests, such as preventive screening for cancer or diabetes.
- a year or more lost education for students from kindergarten through post-graduate level,
- forced isolation and loss of socialization,
- disrupted early childhood development,
- disrupted adolescent development, particularly in terms of achieving independence, understanding risk assessment, and decision-making,
- increased alcohol abuse,
- increased drug abuse,
- increased domestic abuse,
- increased child abuse,
- increased suicides,
- economic disruption,
- supply chain disruptions,
- artificially increased unemployment,
- permanently closed businesses, with concentration in the small business community,
- transfer of income, wealth, and power from small businesses to large businesses,
- reduced income levels, particularly for poorer people,
- inflation, and
- severe deficit spending.
Notice I have only described the damage from government induced loss of economic freedom.
I haven’t even touched on the damage government actions have caused in terms of loss of political freedom and the loss of religious freedom.
Hints of reports which we will see.
Here is a trickle of the types of reports of which we will see a flood in the months to come. Over time there will be a tidal wave of information like this:
2/21/22 – Brian McGlinchey – Public Health Erred on the Side of Catastrophe – Survey of the damage willfully caused by the public health community along with several graphs showing their decisions had minimal, if any, beneficial impact.
2/14/22 – Behind the Black – The lie that was COVID – Survey of the fake data and sundry misrepresentations behind the government’s response.
2/4/22 – ABC Action News – Johns Hopkins University study finds lockdown only reduce COVID deaths by 0.2% – I predict this is merely the first in a string of studies which point to minimal, if any, benefit from lockdowns. We will eventually see reports like this which look at all of the actions by federal and state governments.
Let’s ponder a 0.2% reduction in deaths.
On 3/1/22 the Johns Hopkins database reported there were 950,684 deaths tied to COVID in the U.S. Apply the 0.2% reduction in deaths to that toll and we can calculate the Hopkins study estimate that lockdowns saved 1,901 lives (950,684 * .002 = 1,901).
That benefit will be far exceed by just the increased suicides, or just the increased cancer deaths within a few years due to missed screenings, or just the increased deaths due to loss of health insurance, or just increased fatal drug overdoses.
If that calculation holds and if we combine excess deaths from all causes, it is possible we may see 50 or 100 times more deaths caused by government imposed shutdowns than were saved by the lockdowns.
Conclusion.
With just those three articles I mentioned, you can see why it is time to get these prediction into print. It would be bad form to make predictions after persuasive evidence emerges that all the predictions are correct.
These predictions will be update and expanded over time. I want to lay down a marker by getting them into print in March 2022.