Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Mark Gray —— Bio and Archives—April 30, 2020

This April 4 report on COVID-19 models by CTV is a beauty.  It’s supportive of the use of models, of course, and of the political steps taken based on them and it does so while admitting the models were total bunk.

Here are a few gems.

• Pandemic experts say such projections are not really meant to predict the future, but rather to provide a general guide for policy-makers and health-care systems grappling with a growing pandemic.

• Various assumptions were used to make Ontario’s model, and Donnelly cautioned that “modelling and projecting is a very inexact science.”

• “Because as soon as command table saw the figures that suggested that there could be an overall mortality of between 90 and 100,000, they moved very quickly to shut the schools, which was the right thing to do.”

• During a pandemic “it is essentially impossible to obtain real data,”

• They’re not refining them because their models were wrong per se. They’re refining them because they have additional information….

In effect, they are confessing that the models were guesses, that they aren’t meant to predict the future, that they weren’t wrong “per se” (they were wrong), but that it is right to use them to guide public policy.

These people shouldn’t be allowed near a politician, a student, or a sharp instrument. The initial models were off by a factor of 20 or more and they believe this makes them useful for decision making.

It’s like taking your car in for a tire rotation and the dealership replaces the engine. It’s like going in to have your appendix removed and waking up with a missing leg. It’s like reading the mainstream news and believing you’re informed.

There are consequences to using bad information for big decisions, and they will be negative. The worse the information the worse the consequences. This is simple deductive logic. We all get it, it’s common sense.

The only way to end the negative consequences of any program or policy based on bad information is to eliminate that bad information from consideration. To solve the problem, it’s necessary to backtrack to the root decision, which in the case of COVID-19 policy, is the use of initial assumptive models.

The truth of COVID-19 is that the media should never have hyped the initial projections that caused so much fear and panic and politicians made a massive mistake in using them as a basis for sweeping, and damaging, changes.

The decisions to shutdown the economy and lock down society were made on models that were, admittedly, wildly off base. Why experts believe inaccurate models are useful even as a general guide should make us question the value of “experts”. Why politicians trust those experts should make us question the competence of politicians.

At best, assumptive models should trigger a political heads-up and only be used to trigger protocols and data gathering measures so that big decisions are based on better, more realistic, information. Otherwise, expect a lockdown filled future.

The models were so wrong, they were effectively delusional. Do we seriously want our politicians making delusional decisions? Are we really going to accept that moving forward? Are we going to stop the madness?

It’s Time To Open Things Up

We know the fear was inflated and we know politicians are still using it to extend the lockdown.

Considering that COVID-19’s mortality rate is like the flu, to remain consistent, we should either lockdown the country every flu season or not lockdown for COVID-19.

There is substantial anecdotal evidence of Hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness against COVID-19, see HERE and HERE.

There is also scientific evidence.

There is an effective, affordable, and available treatment right now. What does that tell you about experts, the media, and politicians who warn against it?

The fact that California has a low number of COVID-19 deaths is anecdotal evidence that sunlight (UV), heat, and humidity kills viruses, including COVID-19.  Accuweather claims temperature kills the virus too.

William Bryan, the acting head of the Science and Technology Directorate and the Department of Homeland Security in the United States was clear about the impact of sunlight on COVID-19.  “Our most striking observation to date is the powerful effect that solar light appears to have on killing the virus, both surfaces and in the air. We’ve seen a similar effect with both temperature and humidity as well, where increasing the temperature and humidity or both is generally less favorable to the virus.”

The evidence is piling up. The models were embarrassingly wrong, Sunlight, heat and humidity kill the virus. Hydroxychloroquine works. The lockdown is unnecessary

The evidence is piling up. The models were embarrassingly wrong, Sunlight, heat and humidity kill the virus. Hydroxychloroquine works. The lockdown is unnecessary.

What do we get? Celebrities telling us to stay inside and out of the sun. Sickening commercials that tell us we’re all in it together, but, remember, so were the passengers on the Titanic. A media who avoids or attacks facts that challenge the narrative they’ve been pushing. Politicians preaching that their lockdown and distancing measures are what’s keeping us safe.

Or are politicians saying that simply to hold onto the absolute power COVID-19 panic has given them to control our lives?

Did you know Sweden didn’t lockdown? A study conducted by Isaac Ben-Israel, a professor and Israel Space Agency chairman, says lockdowns are unnecessary, that the virus’ spread follows a fixed pattern regardless. Professor Johan Giesecke, an epidemiologist expert, explains Sweden’s evidence-based approach in this Youtube interview. Yes, Sweden implemented moderate mitigating measures but said no to the draconian steps taken here in North America.  Evidence-based, what a novel idea.

As bad as COVID-19 is, our ignorant response to it is much worse.

Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke