Perceiving the Global ‘Covid19’ Lockdown as Deadlier Than the ‘Pandemic’, and the Little Lie Behind it All


On February 26, 2020, in a paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Anthony Fauci predicted that the coronavirus would be no more deadly than a yearly influenza pandemic, writing that: “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%).” This estimate came from the ‘top coronavirus expert in the country’ (along with the head of the CDC), and was based upon all the latest available data, and aligned with what many other doctors who would be suppressed even to this day had been and would in the near future be saying.

( , )

Nevertheless, this welcome news was ignored by the media, in favor of scarier more deadly estimates which were better suited to instilling widespread fear into the populace and selling the ‘deadliest pandemic of the century’ narrative. Then, in an interesting twist to the story, Dr. Fauci up and radically changed his tune to more closely align with the fear-based media narrative just 13 days later, in testimony made before Congress on March 11, where he stated that:

“The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent. This has a mortality rate of 10 times that. That’s the reason I want to emphasize we have to stay ahead of the game in preventing this."

And with that statement, lockdowns which would abruptly change the course of history were soon instituted across the country. What caused this sudden change in Dr. Fauci’s death rate estimation and whether the 1% figure was an honest mistake or an intentional falsification remains a matter of speculation, but what we do know with certainty is that the initial 0.1% is far closer to reality than the ten times overinflated 1% estimation, no new evidence supporting the radically higher mortality rate estimation which may have emerged in those 13 days has ever been shown to the public, and it was this gross overestimate that caused nearly two months of lockdowns which had widespread detrimental effects which are still being felt today.

A Cambridge study published in August which investigated this very subject chalks the overestimation up to a likely misrepresentation of the estimated infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate in comments made in Fauci’s Congressional testimony, and while there is no proof this was behind the overestimation, the peer-reviewed paper is well worth reading for its step-by-step breakdown of the entire timeline, overview of the outcome of this huge misrepresentation of the reality of the situation, and other highly relevant observations made by the authors, particularly their look at the ethics and negative outcomes of a fear-based response to a pandemic. As summarized by the authors themselves in the Abstract:

Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.

And while we may never know just what possessed Dr. Fauci to make a mortality estimate in front of Congress which was a whopping TEN TIMES greater than his initial estimate made just 13 days earlier, we do know the first estimate was much closer to reality and the second a wild overestimation. “In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy of Feb 28 has proved to be pretty much bang on,” Dr. Malcolm Kendrick wrote in his article entitled, “The 1% conundrum: How a simple but flawed math prediction by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns”, published on September 6.

Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Yes that’s right, the lockdowns didn’t do a damn thing to stop ‘Covid19’, which was incidentally never as deadly as those who insisted on the lockdowns initially told us, using these overinflated estimates as their justification for doing so. But not only that, the ‘pandemic’ is long over by now, and the media continues to insist otherwise, their attempt to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and ultimately sell more lockdown-style measures for what they are calling the coming ‘dark winter’.

Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

When researchers look back at this pandemic, they’ll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died – coincidentally – with it. Everything’s been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible. Lockdown happened because we were told that Covid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.

Dr. Kendrick is right, and he is far from alone in his assessment of the situation. The lockdown was imposed over a lie, a lie which may or may not have been intentional, but a false prediction no less, and to this day the mass of ‘experts’ who supported the lockdown refuse to acknowledge their universal allegiance to this monumental mistake, or deception, whichever it may have been.

We now know, according to the official CDC data for the country, that the survivability rate for those contracting ‘Covid19’ under 50 years of age is 99.98%, which translates into an IFR of 0.02% for those 20-49 years old, lower even than Fauci’s February 26 estimate of 0.1%. Even in those 50-69 years of age, the CDC data showing a survivability rate of 99.5% indicates an IFR of 0.5%, still only half the 1% predicted by Fauci and used to impose lockdown, and this is in the elderly who are already at greater risk of death.


The overwhelming majority of deaths, of course, as we now know, occur in those 70 years of age and older, a large majority of which already have some underlying or pre-existing condition, often chronic illnesses which are already slowly killing them.

All of the hype aside, unprecedented global lockdowns were imposed over something no deadlier than a bad influenza season, which have never in history caused such extreme reactions or widespread fear...

Before moving on, it is also worth pointing out that the top definition for ‘lockdown’ in the New Oxford American Dictionary is: “The confining of prisoners to their cells, typically after an escape, or to regain control during a riot.” Other dictionaries share similar definitions. A lockdown was never something designed for free people, but rather for prisoners, and in this case it was always about gaining control of the people, not stopping a deadly pandemic.

And, as history is demonstrating, the lockdowns have turned out to be far more harmful and even deadlier than the virus they were supposedly implemented to fight.

For example, Harvard recently warned that “Coronavirus (government policy) will cause global ‘tsunami’ of mental health problems worse than 2008 financial crash.”

But this wasn’t unexpected. When President Donald Trump announced the extension of the nationwide lockdown for another month at the beginning of April, he publicly acknowledged the societal harm it would cause, stating that a lockdown “would ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent,” - in the form of increased unemployment, poverty, drug abuse, and suicide, a lockdown ‘side effect’ the President has also previously acknowledged.

These world leaders were clearly not in the dark about the massive damage these lockdowns would cause their populations when they chose to implement them against the people’s will, but they simply chose to do so anyway, deeming the potential ‘risk’ of the spread of ‘Covid19’ to be more dangerous than the known damage such policy would inevitably cause down the road.

In April the UN warned that the economic fallout of these western lockdowns would likely cause a global famine of ‘biblical proportions’, and “that there could be a doubling this year in the number of people who are literally starving to death and won't survive unless they get help."

NPR reported that the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator was at that time “calling on the world's wealthiest countries to provide $90 billion in relief aid to the poorest, an amount estimated to “be sufficient to protect 700 million of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

And, “Even though $90 billion is no small amount,” NPR notes, it represents only “about 1.8% of the economic stimulus packages put in place by the world's richest countries to cushion the economic impact of the coronavirus,” such as the $6.2 trillion spent by the US alone. These warnings were largely ignored by the politicians of all the western countries which imposed lockdowns, who also chose not to use any of the trillions being doled out in ‘coronavirus aid’ to help the world’s poorest who are to this day being adversely affected by their own insane policies which in fact did nothing to stop the spread of the virus itself.

In fact, studies have actually shown that the lockdowns likely did just the opposite and increased the spread of the virus, due to prolonged close contact among family members and anywhere groups of people were locked down in a single facility, such as at rest homes, one of the few places where there truly were pandemic scenarios all across the country.

The harsh reality is, as summarized by Dr. Kendrick, “that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself.”

Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.
We threw – to use Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

And on, and on, and on goes the list of harm caused directly by the lockdowns, by unnecessarily shutting hospitals down to anyone but those being deemed ‘Covid19’ patients, by permanently shutting down thousands of small businesses and effectively eradicating what little remained of the Middle Class.

As Dr. Kendrick concluded this point: “We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear.”

From the very beginning of all of this, fear has been the real contagion, the real problem, and a pandemic of fear ensued, and needlessly continues to this day.


And we did so much more than kill tens of thousands with the lockdown policy, as both unemployment rates and the number of people frequenting food banks across the country remain at an unprecedented high, the rate of people now becoming homeless due to an inability to make rent or mortgage payments is also at an all time high, and the majority of small businesses which were shut down by the government-imposed lockdown will never open their doors again. And that is just here in America.

Across Africa in particular and all across the developing world, the situation is far worse. More and more African children are now dying from hunger every day than ever before, as I know from personal reports. The UN’s warnings was not all hype, and now the whole world is beginning to feel the full effects of the insane political reaction to a fear based on overinflated numbers and false pandemic mortality estimates.

A German Minister - Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development Gerd Muller - has now openly warned that the European lockdown will kill more people around the world than ‘Covid19’.

As reported by RT on September 24, “The grim prognosis was made by the German official in an interview with the Handelsblatt daily.”

The pandemic has already triggered “one of the biggest” hunger and poverty crises across the world, Muller said – and further damage will be done thanks to the measures taken to battle it.

We expect an additional 400,000 deaths from malaria and HIV this year on the African continent alone, while half a million more will die from tuberculosis.
The situation stems from the fact that the West, and the EU in particular, has funneled its relief efforts into battling the coronavirus at home instead of helping the impoverished elsewhere. The Covid-19 pandemic has somewhat blinded the West, which has lost sight of the mounting problems in the rest of the world, Muller argued.

The West has been blinded by its fear, unfounded fear, fear of a pandemic that has by now all but disappeared.

“The supply of food and medication is no longer guaranteed,” Muller said. “Many of the West’s aid programs are not adequately funded.”

9 million people were already dying of hunger each year before all of this pandemic lockdown insanity, and yet throughout its duration, world leaders continued to insist that this ‘pandemic’ continued to remain “public enemy number one.” The reality is that long before this ‘pandemic’ arrived, hunger was truly already the biggest real global epidemic, and it was and continues to be ignored, despite having the simplest solution of all.


Likewise, fear has always truly been humanity’s “public enemy number one,” not any external threat. And now, because of that, this very real and very deadly global epidemic of hunger continues to grow and intensify, thanks to the western choice to both lockdown the world and ignore the poor as they dished out trillions in response. Now there is an increasing number of African children starving to death each and every day, as those living in the region are reporting, and western media insists on continuing to report the ‘Covid19’ non-pandemic as the leading news story and biggest threat in the entire world.

Of particular interest to the westerners who are so focused on their own problems and theirs alone, is the likelihood that the ongoing policy of ignoring these far greater problems will eventually come back to bite them, and this boomerang effect may in fact have already begun.

According to the German Minister, the EU and Germany in particular are looking at “humanitarian catastrophes” that are “building up right on our doorstep.”

“Europe has decided to support its own economy with programs worth around two trillion euros. No additional support is planned for Africa. That will catch up with us,” Muller added.

This assessment falls directly in line with the UN warning made in April, when the UN Under-Secretary General argued the growing problem affecting the world’s poorest would’t stay isolated to the developing world, but would eventually spread back to the very western societies responsible for causing and then ignoring the problem.

"If instability and conflict grows, as it tends to when economic stress is acute in those kinds of countries, it won't just stay in those countries, it will spread," he said. "So this is a matter of national interest and self-interest, not just of human generosity."

And still they remained blinded by fear, or as is more likely, they remained focused on their own totalitarian agenda, which involved orchestrating global chaos and ensuring their own populations remained blinded by fear as they continued to push through the global Covid1984 agenda with minimum resistance. Either way, fear is the problem, and has created far larger problems than the original problem we were all told to fear. Now that fear is being used as a perpetual tool by the tyrannical overlords seeking to further expand their planned global technocracy.


As Antony P. Mueller puts it, in his article From Lockdowns to “The Great Reset” published by the Misis Institute: “The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste of what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.”

With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.

“Knowing this,” James Corbett concluded in a recent podcast, “the only question is: Will we reject the ‘War on the Invisible Enemy’ before it’s too late? Whatever our choice, we better make it quickly. A Great Reset is coming.”

3 columns
2 columns
1 column
1 Comment