While Dr. Fauci continues to brazenly insist that the repressive ‘lockdown’ measures work, he has begun to distance himself from the failed policy.
On Sunday, he was confronted on the BBC about whether or not the lockdowns were too ‘severe.’ Watch:
“I’m interested in your reluctance to use the word ‘lockdown’,” the BBC interviewer said. “Do you think two years on that they were worth it or were they too severe?”
“You know, I don’t think we’re ever going to be able to determine what the right balance is,” Fauci claimed. “I think ‘restrictions,’ if you want to use that word, which I tend to shy away from ‘lockdown,’ they certainly prevented a lot of infections, prevent a lot of hospitalizations, and prevented a lot of deaths,” he claimed without providing any evidence.
“There’s no doubt about that,” Fauci nonetheless stated. “Obviously, when you do have that kind of restriction on society, there are unintended negative consequences, particularly in children who are not allowed to go to school in the psychological and mental health aspects that it has on children, in the economic stress that it puts on society in general, on individual families. Obviously those are negative consequences that are unintended.”
There is mounting evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci imported his destructive and futile ‘lockdown’ model from communist China.
Despite knowing that extended lockdowns can cause ‘irreparable damage’ to a nation, he has nonetheless advocated for them repeatedly, while ignoring numerous studies showing they are futile at lowering excess mortality rates.
A recent Wall Street Journal article points to the void of past scientific literature advocating such measures in the United States prior to Covid.
“China this month reimposed harsh lockdowns on tens of millions of citizens in its relentless quest for ‘zero Covid,” the authors Prof.and human rights activist wrote.
“The steps come two years after much of the U.S. followed China’s lockdown lead,” the piece continued. “California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the first statewide U.S. stay-at-home order on March 19, 2020. All U.S. states and most other countries have long since abandoned lockdowns as oppressive, ineffective and exorbitantly expensive. But why did free countries adopt such a strategy to begin with?”
“In the decades before Covid-19, U.S public-health officials had prepared for a possible global pandemic, informed by past examples such as the 1918-19 Spanish flu, which killed 3% of the world’s population, the flu pandemics of 1958 and 1968, and SARS in 2003,” the piece added. “Stay-at-home orders weren’t part of the script in pre-Covid federal pandemic plans. The idea of ‘flattening the curve’ through what are known as ‘layered non-pharmaceutical interventions’ can be traced to an influential 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance paper, updated in 2017.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci has a long history of collaboration with communist Chinese officials, particularly in regards to the NIAID’s funding of the Wuhan laboratory through EcoHealth Alliance.
In a video posted by the University of Edinburgh last March, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared with Dr. Zhong Nanshan, known to many as “China’s Fauci.’ At the virtual panel, Dr. Zhong responded to a question from Dr. Anthony Fauci that elicited his advocacy of “strict” lockdowns.
“There are so many questions to consider,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “the one that I think is very important, that seems to dominate the discussion throughout the world, but certainly in the United States, relates to one of the slides that Dr. Zhong showed, will you have the balance between the economic considerations and the health considerations.”
“There’s a constant understandable need to open up the country and get back to normal,” Dr. Fauci said. “I keep getting asked that question every time I give an interview, every time I have a discussion, everyone wants to get back to some form of normality.”
“But if one does it too quickly, and as Dr. Zhong has mentioned what I often say, ‘jump the gun’ or do it too quickly, what happens is that you can get a resurgence of infection,” Dr. Fauci continued. “So the question is, what is the right balance of continuing to put stringent public health measures at the same time as you gradually open up the economy and open up the country.”
“It’s very risky. If you go too fast, you’ll have a setback,” Dr. Fauci went on. “If you go to slow, you have a lot of the suffering that Dr. Zhong spoke about, the mental health problems, the economic problems, it’s a very delicate balance that the students need to consider how difficult that type of balance is to maintain.”
Earlier in March, Dr. Fauci suggested that Covid lockdowns could be reintroduced at any moment should a subvariant lead to a resurgence.
“If in fact, we do see a turnaround and a resurgence, we have to be able to pivot and go back to any degree of mitigation that is commensurate with what the situation is,” Fauci said during an interview with CNN.
“We can’t just say, ‘We’re done. We’re going to move on.’ We’ve got to be able to be flexible because we’re dealing with a dynamic situation,” he added, noting the new variant to be less fatal than the Omicron variant. “The overall mortality is actually down. It’s a very interesting situation where the cases are going up, but it does not, at this point in time, appear to be any degree of severity.”
In May 2020, however, Fauci warned of “irreparable damage” from extended lockdowns.
“We can’t stay locked down for such a considerable period of time that you might do irreparable damage and have unintended consequences, including consequences for health,” Fauci said in a CNBC interview.
His prediction proved salient.
The United States’ Covid policy responses that include quarantining, masks, and social distancing, as well as the ‘lockdowns,’ have failed to produce statistically significant results fighting Covid, but have wrought serious damage to the economy and violated countless Americans’ rights.
An exhaustive Johns Hopkins University comparative analysis published in January found that strict lockdowns failed to significantly reduce Covid-related deaths.
“Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University,” the Washington Times reported. “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.”
“The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors added. “Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”
The COVID lockdowns will cause damage to the United States for many years to come, including a lasting toll on economic vitality, public health, and in terms of human lives. Such is the conclusion of a number of recent academic studies, including those conducted by researchers at the RAND corporation, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“The huge collateral damage of lockdowns is becoming clear. Global unemployment has spiked. Hundreds of millions of children have missed school, often for months. Families have been kept apart. And much of the damage is still to come,” The Economist noted.
“Research is more divided over the second uncertainty: the benefit of lockdowns, or the extent to which they reduce the spread of, and deaths from, covid-19,” the report added. “The fact that, time and again, the imposition of a lockdown in a country was followed a few weeks later by declining cases and deaths might appear to settle the debate. That said, another recent NBER paper failed to find that countries or American states that were quick to implement shelter-in-place policies had fewer excess deaths than places which were slower to act. A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal, by Christopher Berry of the University of Chicago and colleagues, cannot find ‘effects of [shelter-in-place] policies on disease spread or deaths’, but does find ‘small, delayed effects on unemployment’.”
Lockdowns may end up killed children for years to come due to the ensuing global economic contraction, particularly in poor counties, NBER research also found. Its study was discussed at the Washington Times.
“[I]n poor countries, where the population is relatively young, the economic contraction associated with lockdowns could potentially lead to 1.76 children’s lives being lost for every covid-19 fatality averted, probably because wellbeing suffers as incomes decline,” the Washington Times summarized.
“What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose,” the Times notes. “Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as ‘sheltering in place,’ or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.”
“[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives,” NBER stated in blunt terms. “To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP [Shelter-in-Place] policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”
“So, the lockdowns didn’t reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths,” the authors concluded. A new Lancet study has echoed those findings.
“Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21,” explains, “the magnitude and distribution of many other causes of death might have changed because of social, economic, and behavioural responses to the pandemic, including strict lockdowns. Under these conditions, excess mortality can provide a more accurate assessment of the total mortality impact of the COVID-19 pandemic than reported COVID-19 deaths.”
“Our excess mortality estimates reflect the full impact of the pandemic on mortality around the world, and not only deaths directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the article explains about its model, which incorporated all-cause mortality reports for 74 countries and territories and 266 subnational locations.
The main finding of the study was its estimate that about three times as many people died worldwide due to the “global pandemic” than is suggested by Covid-related mortality figures.
“Although reported COVID-19 deaths between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021, totalled 5.94 million worldwide, we estimate that 18.2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period. The global all-age rate of excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic was 120.3 deaths (113·1–129·3) per 100 000 of the population, and excess mortality rate exceeded 300 deaths per 100,000 of the population in 21 countries. The number of excess deaths due to COVID-19 was largest in the regions of south Asia, north Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe.”
However, the “global pandemic” did not directly cause millions of these estimated deaths; the Covid policies, such as lockdowns, contributed greatly to the final tallies, as the Lancet study itself notes.
Thus, Dr. Fauci’s argument that lockdowns save lives is shown through numerous studies to be completely devoid of evidentiary basis or scientific merit. On the contrary, the preponderence of evidence points to lockdowns causing more deaths than they save.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.