Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Lockdown was a choice

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Ejercito

unread,
May 16, 2021, 1:56:13 PM5/16/21
to
https://thecritic.co.uk/lockdown-was-a-choice/

Lockdown was a choice
Agree with the policy if you like, but you can’t argue Lockdown harms
were caused by Covid

ARTILLERY ROW
By

Tom Moran
13 May, 2021
Chemotherapy is not always the most appropriate course of action for
cancer patients. Put simply, the side effects of chemotherapy, which can
have an extremely detrimental effect on the patient’s quality of life,
must be taken into account in the context of the Hippocratic oath (first
do no harm) before any treatments are prescribed. Where a good chance of
recovery is not present, subjecting the patient to possible months of
nausea, loss-of-appetite, fatigue, insomnia, hair loss, compromised
immunity, anaemia or other debilitating conditions, may not be
proportional to the benefit. This is why, in every individual case,
decisions are made by clinicians in consultation with the patient and
their family to decide whether chemotherapy is the best course of action.

Sensible decisions can only be made when the harms caused by cancer and
the negative side-effects of chemotherapy are seen as mutually
exclusive. Were doctors to conflate the two, a cost-benefit analysis
would be rendered impossible. No oncologist would ever tell their
patient that the hair loss they were experiencing was “because of the
cancer”, knowing full well that it was a side-effect of the treatment.
Chemotherapy is undoubtedly a highly-effective and life-saving treatment
with years of efficacy data to support its implementation — but even in
cases where the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, the treatment is
always regarded as a choice with repercussions.

Imagine if, from its inception, chemotherapy had become an ideology.
Imagine that respect for this miracle of science had transcended into
zealotry, whereby no side-effects were ever considered and all
debilitating symptoms were ascribed to the cancer itself. Many patients
would have undergone this treatment unnecessarily, suffering a huge blow
to the quality of their remaining life without any real benefit. The
ability to weigh up risk and reward is a prerequisite for any healthcare
practitioner or policymaker.

There is a very deliberate line of rhetoric designed to shut down any
retrospective analysis of lockdown

Consider society as a patient. The novel coronavirus is the cancer. The
government’s scientific advisors are the oncologists and the measures
they “prescribe” are the treatment. No one can deny that the response to
the threat of SARS-CoV-2 has been extreme. Unlike chemotherapy, the
treatments advocated by public health advisors are novel and
experimental. Thus far, the side effects have included, but are not
limited to, the largest drop in GDP in over 300 years, at least 70,000
families facing homelessness, alcohol deaths rising to a 20 year high, a
doubling of suicide-related calls to the London Ambulance Service,
increased eating disorders in children and young people, a 60% increase
in domestic abuse, 350,000 missed cancer referrals, 50,000 delayed child
surgeries, and 2.9 billion cut from the foreign aid budget. On a global
scale, Unicef has forecasted 1.2 million child deaths as a result of
lockdowns, not the virus itself.

Articles about collateral damage widely use phrases such as “due to the
pandemic” or “because the government was forced to lockdown”. This is a
very deliberate line of rhetoric designed to shut down any retrospective
analysis of this course of action by conflating the fallout from
government policy with the effects of the pandemic itself. Before 2020,
“social distancing” was an alien concept. “Lockdown” was not a word in
our vocabulary. Face coverings in the community were widely seen as an
ineffective and possibly counter-intuitive response to an epidemic. One
year on, we are prohibited from questioning the efficacy of any of these
new and extreme ideas, and are largely tricked into believing that these
measures were the only possible course of action.

But there was a choice. The government made that choice. Whether you
feel that this choice was appropriate or proportional to the risk is not
the issue here. At the very least, one has to understand the importance
of separating collateral damage caused by our measures from the effects
of the virus itself. Following an initial cost-benefit analysis
predicting 200,000 deaths as a result of the first lockdown, the
government seemingly lost all interest in forecasting the collateral
damage of their pandemic response, presenting their measures as the only
viable option.

Cancer does not cause hair loss. Viruses do not make people homeless

Even when an independent study predicted the equivalent of 500,000 lives
lost to ongoing coronavirus policies, the majority of politicians showed
little to no interest. Now that the damage has been done, we have an
obligation to evaluate the side-effects of the treatment and decide
whether those effects were proportional to the benefit, not least so
that we may improve decision-making as and when new viral threats
emerge. This will not be possible until journalists and MPs abandon the
transparently manipulative strategy of conflating the cure with the disease.

Cancer does not cause hair loss. Viruses do not make people homeless. We
have just participated, without consent, in the largest medical
experiment in human history. Are we not entitled, at the very least, to
a fair and logical evaluation of the outcomes?

HeartDoc Andrew

unread,
May 16, 2021, 2:10:18 PM5/16/21
to
The only **healthy** way to stop the pandemic in the UK and other
places is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding
out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who among us
are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in
order to http://bit.ly/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) for them to call
their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping
this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the
worse-case scenario of the B.1.1.7 lineage mutations and others like
the P.1, B.1.135, B.1.351, B.1.429, B.1.525, & B.1.617.1-3 lineage
mutations combining to render current COVID vaccines no longer
effective.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 )
and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?








...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2016 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President:
http://bit.ly/WonderfullyHungryPresident
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

Michael Ejercito

unread,
May 17, 2021, 9:31:11 AM5/17/21
to
I am wonderfully hungry!


Michael

HeartDoc Andrew

unread,
May 17, 2021, 11:57:12 AM5/17/21
to
MichaelE wrote:
> I am wonderfully hungry!



While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/convince_it_forward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory to
GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://HeartMDPhD.com/VAT
from around the heart

...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
0 new messages