There IS another way to beat coronavirus, PM - and here it is: Oxford experts DR TOM JEFFERSON and PROFESSOR CARL HENEGHAN reveal the blueprint they have handed to Boris Johnson

By DR TOM JEFFERSON and PROFESSOR CARL HENEGHAN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:01 GMT, 31 October 2020 | UPDATED: 05:16 GMT, 1 November 2020

You could be forgiven for thinking that the situation we now face is as clear as it possibly could be – and that it is becoming more dangerous by the day. The virus, we are told, is out of control, that Britain is heading for 3,000 to 4,000 deaths a day by Christmas, and that our hospitals are on the edge of catastrophe.

Yet we believe the situation is not at all clear. There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term. They kick the can down the road. The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of 'reset', allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.

The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself. We presented just such a plan to the Prime Minister himself more than a month ago. It will be put before him once again this weekend. We urge him to pay attention and embrace it.

Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings. We must address the problems in the Government's mass testing programme; we must tackle the blight of confused and contradictory statistics; we must make real efforts to protect and isolate those who are vulnerable; and we must inform the public about the true and quantifiable costs of lockdown (as if they needed telling).

If we do these things, there is real hope that we can learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan.

Huge resources have been poured into the roll-out of mass swab tests provided by the NHS. In theory, they should tell us who is infectious, how far the virus is spreading and how fast. In practice, the regime is somewhat aimless and indiscriminate. It has wasted precious resources.

In part, this is because the results identify large numbers of 'positive' cases among people who are not infectious. In some cases, the swab tests are picking up levels of Covid-19 which are so very low that the patient will not pass the virus on.

This makes a 'positive' reading difficult to interpret. In other cases, administrative errors creep in, as is only too likely given the volume of testing. But the bigger problem is this: the tests give us a simple yes/no answer but fail to identify those who pose a genuine risk.

The results make no distinction between an eight-year-old who is less likely to transmit the virus and a 75-year-old who could prove highly infectious and is in personal danger, especially if suffering multiple health problems.

That is why we must stop relying on yes/no test results alone and start looking at people's age and symptoms, too.

We are calling for a national programme of testing quality control to ensure that results are accurate, precise and consistent.

We have searched in vain for evidence that many of the tests in use have been independently and centrally validated. We should also be given data showing how sensitive the laboratory processes have been, as this will tell us how much virus was actually present in the swabs

If your levels of virus are low, then the chances of passing it on are also low. Then we must target the tests at those who truly need them. Care workers, for example, rather than primary school pupils. The contact tracers will perform better if they have fewer, more important, cases to chase.

We understand that the Prime Minister has pinned his hopes on rapid turnaround tests that could give an answer within an hour. Where is the scientific evidence to show that they work? What, we wonder, would be the cost?

Shoddy data is a second key failing. The statistics are not transparent. A confusion of different methods is used and at times they are politicised.

We are told as a matter of certain fact that the whole of the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed. Our data suggest that there have indeed been hotspots – in Liverpool, for example – but that the situation is stabilising even in some of these places.

In the past 48 hours, we have been told there are 96,000 new infections a day. But we have also been told by respectable analysts that there are 36,000 cases and 55,000 cases a day. Take your pick. The track record of predictions – once checked against the facts – is abysmal.

Covid projections and illustrations are made by the Government and its advisers on a regular basis, yet by the time we could check they are correct, they've already been lost amid the murky haze of yet more tables, charts and projections. It is hard enough for seasoned epidemiologists to keep up with the figures. For the public it is a hopeless task.

Protecting the vulnerable is the third priority. This is key to living with the virus while maintaining some semblance of normal life.

We failed to protect the old and sick at the start of the year and we are now in danger of failing once again – even though this could be the single most effective measure of them all.

It is people who are over 85 and those who are already unwell who account for the vast majority of deaths. We must increase the number of staff in care homes by a minimum of 20 per cent and set up specialist clinical teams to support them. And we should prevent staff moving between care homes and taking the virus with them.

We must recognise, too, that a dangerous percentage of infections occur within hospitals themselves and seek to guard against them. Hospital-acquired infections may account for up to 25 per cent of Covid cases on the wards. In the North West of England, they recently made up 24 per cent of all Covid patients.

Finally, we must change the tone and scope of the debate.

There has to be a measured discussion that includes the consequences of lockdown as well as the supposed benefits.

Otherwise, there can be no clear way forward. People are confused, fatigued and starting to understand that crude restrictions targeting the whole of society – irrespective of risk – are counterproductive.

Indeed, they kill people just as surely as Covid-19. There have been 23,619 excess deaths in England in people's homes since the start of April.

Yet only ten per cent of these are directly related to Covid. The rest, we might assume, are the result of restricting national life and access to usual healthcare. These deaths have largely been ignored.

If we retain hope and support each other through this winter, there is every reason to be optimistic.

There are already corners of the country which are showing resilience. It is no coincidence that districts which suffered the worst of the original outbreak are now doing better. But it is time to listen to the public and establish a dialogue.

It is time to cut through the confusion with a clear vision and a national plan that goes beyond the blunt tool of lockdown to take us through the coming months. 

The blueprint handed to the Prime Minister by Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan from Oxford University's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine

Planning the way forward

In the current situation of confusion and spurious certainty, society needs a clear, coherent plan to deal with the threat posed by our reactions to SARS CoV-2. A clear plan is necessary to diminish anxiety, minimise the devastation of lockdowns and restore some faith in public health and its governance.

Based on our analysis of the available scientific literature, news pieces and our more than 50 years of combined experience of studying the epidemiology of respiratory agents and the attempts to control them, we have developed an updated and slightly more detailed version of an action plan that was presented to the Prime Minister in mid-September.

We start with a clear aim and mention the areas which in our view need to be urgently addressed:

*cases and testing

*identifying the vulnerable and reducing their risk.

Many details are missing for brevity but the bare bones are here. We have addressed the many data failures we have identified (secrecy, redundancy, different methods, fragmentation of sources) elsewhere.

We believe our outline may be the start of a way forward: it should be openly discussed, developed or amended as more evidence accumulates.

Aim: To control the spread of acute respiratory illness while minimising societal disruption

Control is the reduction in the incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality of an infectious disease to a locally acceptable level.

Objectives:

1) To improve the testing and detection of cases;

2) To identify the vulnerable and reduce their risk whilst enhancing supportive measures;

3) To identify and mitigate the collateral damage of COVID; and

4) To develop a better interpretation of the COVID data.

1) To improve the testing and detection of cases

Transmission (school, groups of youngsters)

Identify, contact trace and isolate INFECTIOUS symptomatic children.

Switch off testing in primary schools (there is good evidence that children to adults transmission is limited) and replace with symptomatic isolation of this age group.

Transmission (adult)

Identify, contact trace and isolate only INFECTIOUS symptomatic adult cases.

Produce outline reports with results of tests and enough contextual information to interpret data (age, medical history, test results with cut off for positivity) to local authorities and local public health teams

Isolate the contagious in dedicated facilities if in an extended family with high-risk individuals

Testing (cases)

National programme to coordinate quality control of all testing to ensure accuracy, precision and consistency of results.

Routine checking against gold standard tests for infection/contagiousness of samples.

Coordination by Public Health England or successor with powers to act for failing laboratories.

2) To identify the vulnerable and reduce their risk whilst enhancing supportive measures;

Provide shelter and protection depending on circumstances, either in the home or in care facilities. Facilities must be separate with dedicated staff, accommodation, ablution and catering.

Increase staffing in care homes by a minimum of 20% and provide intensive clinical care home teams in the community.

No moving of staff between care homes to be allowed (SARS-CoV-2 positivity identified as 3-fold higher in staff working across different care homes).

Reduce the number of individuals that a single carer attends to in the home setting and ensure that the carer has regular testing.

Improved management and prevention of Non Communicable Disease through a combination of public health measures and enhanced behavioural measures that target weight reduction, smoking cessation, enhanced exercise programs and reduction of Cardiovascular disease risk measures.

In-hospital infection control

Enhance hospital infection detection and control measures.

Separate potentially infectious admissions from other admissions especially the frail and those with pre-existing morbidities. Places which are separate from the community and staffed by specialists.

Enhanced support for those in their own homes

Provide enhanced clinical support for those in the home setting particularly with preexisting cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cerebrovascular disease where excess deaths remain persistently above normal levels.

Provide enhanced palliative care services for those choosing to die in the home setting.

Provide adequate environmental measures such as heating and humidity control in the home setting with appropriate funding.

Increase the ability to attend low-risk activities for high risk such as safe shopping hours and dedicated safe spaces to exercise and socialise. Encourage physical activity (even if indoors) and socialising.

3) To identify and mitigate the collateral damage of Covid

Decisions for or against taking restrictive measures require the harms we set out to be incorporated into models that assess the net benefit to harm ratio of any measures.

There should be a separation of those who gather and synthesise the evidence from those who decide on the policy. Broader health care experience and expertise should feed into the healthcare evidence-gathering approach. A wider range of society should be represented in the decision making bodies.

Red teaming policy decisions should be the norm by adopting a practise that rigorously challenges plans, policies and any assumptions.

Dissemination of information on collateral damage for wider understanding.

4) To develop a better interpretation of the Covid data

Improve the interpretation, critical analysis of UK healthcare data during outbreaks.

Increase the range of skills and expertise interpreting and analysing the government data.

Improve the transparency of UK healthcare data through new legislation.

To develop a robust evidence base for non-pharmaceutical interventions and their effectiveness that define what works and refutes what doesn't

Evidence to support the aim to control the spread of acute respiratory illness while minimising societal disruption

Interchangeable terms of control, elimination and eradication are often used but poorly understood. The World Health Organisation defines 'control' as a reduction in the incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality of an infectious disease to a locally acceptable level, 'elimination' as a reduction to zero of the incidence of disease or infection in a defined geographical area; and 'eradication' as permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection.

1) To improve the testing and detection of cases;

The identification of cases is needed to care for those with serious symptoms and/or the contagious (often overlapping, especially in older age groups). Aimless and indiscriminate mass testing is a waste of resources and heightens anxiety. No breakdown by severity or contagiousness has ever been reported in the case data, hampering progress. Contact tracers will perform better if they have fewer cases to chase. If they can concentrate on the important cases there will be a clear focus.

There is evidence of limited transmission in schools. Also, not all cases of Covid are the same. Some cases that pass a low threshold for a 'positive' test are unlikely to be contagious. The odds of children being infectious are lower than adults, while sports activities do not increase the risk of transmission and help to maintain cardiovascular fitness. School disruption will have long term consequences.

There is weak evidence of transmission between healthy individuals and of asymptomatic transmission. Similarly, tiny levels of virus can be detected if testers carry out multiple test cycles. But cases above a certain threshold of test cycles are less likely to be contagious because the virus, or fragments of the virus, are present only in very low quantities.

We do know that the window of transmission for asymptomatic adults is shorter than that of symptomatics; for them, the duration of infectiousness is up to 7 days. Also, being aged over 75 is known to be an increased risk factor for Covid-19 mortality, especially if there are pre-existing conditions such as cardiovascular problems.

Tests on their own (with a binary infectious Yes/No) do not provide sufficient information to identify contagiousness or seriousness. Full test results including cycle threshold should be made available and presented by the risk of contagiousness.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Microbiology Committee advised caution must be used in interpreting the Cycle Threshold (Ct) Value. 

2. Identify the vulnerable and reduce their risk whilst enhancing supportive measures

Measures targeting all of society irrespective of risk will be counterproductive over the long term when the balance of benefits and harms of lockdown is taken into account. The social distancing of those at higher risk of severe outcomes and reducing their risks could be the most effective policy combination for epidemic mitigation. The Imperial College Report Nine in March stated that the most effective combination of interventions includes targeting those most at risk (the over 70s).

In all, three-quarters of the Covid deaths were in over 75s. In care homes, 82 per cent of outbreaks occurred within an eight-week period in Spring and led to around 40 per cent of deaths with Covid 19 - 23,005 excess deaths. In addition, there have also been 23, 619 excess deaths of people in their own homes since the week beginning 30 March this year. However, deaths in their own homes are predominantly due to other causes: only 2,421 (roughly 10 per cent) are Covid-19 deaths. The 90 per cent of deaths at home that are not due to Covid-19 deaths have largely been ignored.

While the majority of Covid deaths have occurred in hospitals - 32,275 cases - the excess deaths are 8,486 or 7 per cent higher than what would be expected in an average year.

Over-85s and those with pre-existing pathologies account for the vast majority of death with Covid 19. In an investigation of six London nursing homes, nearly 40 per cent of residents and 21 per cent of staff were infected.

Health Care Acquired Infections may account for up to 25% of cases and perhaps deaths in people admitted to hospital without Covid 19 on admission. They comprised 18 per cent of all new hospital cases on 6 October. In the North West of England, HCAIs made up 24 per cent of all patients on this date.

Deaths in own homes have seen 23,619 excess deaths since week 14, and are predominantly due to other causes: 90% are non-Covid deaths.

Non‐pharmaceutical approaches have been shown to be useful in controlling infection in care homes and hospitals, however high-quality trials are needed to understand the most effective intervention.

3. Identification and mitigation of the collateral damage of Covid

(Top ten known harms)

Inequalities: Large increase in inequalities (including health) whose effect will last years, impacting predominantly females, ethnic minorities and those with chronic illnesses. Food poverty has increased with increasing usage of food banks.

Mental health: Huge and diverse increases in mental health issues e.g. increase in young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, more psychiatric urgent and emergency cases, fall in routine appointments meaning huge unmet mental illness treatment, increase in lockdown loneliness which is associated with later depression and anxiety, for up to a decade later. However, lockdown saw a 50 per cent reduction in common mental health problems diagnosed.

The mental health effects have affected young adults and women much more; groups that already had lower levels of mental health before Covid-19. Hence inequalities in mental health have been increased by the pandemic.

Children's education: A general loss of learning time for all children with children in the poorest families spend much less time learning compared to the richest 20 per cent of households. Closing schools widened educational inequalities, especially among primary school students. Poorer families being much less able to access the tools for remote learning e.g. laptops. These effects can potentially last a lifetime.

Child protection: Child protection decreased alongside a reduction in health visiting. A huge decrease in children being brought for emergency medical treatment.

Elderly: Nearly three-quarters of people aged 70 and over are worried about the effect that Covid-19 is having on their life right now, with over 40% saying their mental health has been affected. Care homes have been particularly affected with excess deaths, heightened isolation and stresses on staff.

Cancer diagnosis: Cancer services have been severely affected, with over two million people in the UK waiting for screening, tests and treatments within 10 weeks of lockdown. There's been a significant drop in two-week referrals with 290,000 fewer people being referred for further tests than normal. Roughly 130,000 people who would ordinarily be referred to a consultant have not been.

Cancer treatment: Around 12,750 people are waiting for cancer surgery across the UK, the number of operations fell to around 60 per cent of expected levels. There has also been a sharp drop in those receiving chemotherapy.

Charities: A huge reduction in funding (30 to 50 per cent) meaning reduced services was the same time as increasing demand for their services. The knock-on effect will see the NHS having to meet an unmet need. One in ten charities are facing bankruptcy.

Women's rights: Women have been hardest hit by redundancies. Young women were hardest hit early on when female-dominated sectors such as retail, hotels and hairdressing salons shut overnight. Since then mothers have been much more likely to have been fired, quit or furloughed than fathers during lockdown.

The Fawcett Society reported that the pandemic means it will take an additional 30 years to close Britain's gender pay gap, meaning it will now be almost a century until women and men are paid equally. And Refuge has seen a 950 per cent increase in visits to its website.

General medical diagnoses: Compared with expected numbers, 456 fewer diagnoses of circulatory system diseases (43 per cent reduction) and 135 fewer type 2 diabetes diagnoses (49 per cent reduction) and a 71 per cent fall in the numbers of full blood counts performed from primary care in the four weeks since the lockdown was introduced.

4. To develop a better interpretation of the Covid data

The amount of Covid data produced is vast; it is deposited around many different sites - many of which are hard to find - not all of it is in the public domain. The track record of predictions, once eventually validated against the facts, is abysmal. There have been several noteworthy failings.

Covid predictions, projections and illustrations are made and reported by the government and its advisors on a regular basis; yet they have often gone unchecked as the Covid narrative unfolds. By the time they are ready for checking, the next prediction has materialized - and they are forgotten in the murky haze of further predictions.

When the Manchester Evening News asked for trust-by-trust Covid admissions numbers as a proportion of overall capacity in Greater Manchester, six out of seven relevant trusts did not respond. Wigan, Wrightington and Leigh said that 'we are unable to provide figures - these will be issued at national level.' We were advised that a Freedom of Information request was required to obtain the data and it would take up to 21 days for a response. We have also had access to essential healthcare data blocked but we are aware of important data that are not in the public domain.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900897/Oxford-experts-DR-TOM-JEFFERSON-PROFESSOR-CARL-HENEGHAN-reveal-blueprint-handed-Boris-Johnson.html

* * *

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-ten-worst-covid-decision-making-failures

*

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/collateral-damage-cdc-admits-covid-lockdowns-sparked-surge-childrens-mental-health-issues?fbclid=IwAR1q-AnlqNsjzGLeu31YaaKErFES2t2nt6OOpYxK10WHw6X46IFxf481h_8

*

https://vimeo.com/482001636 slovenski podnapisi 

Dr. Roger Hodkinskon: Hvala lepa. Cenim priložnost, da vas lahko nagovorim o tej zelo pomembni zadevi. Govoril bom v laičnem jeziku in brez ovinkov. To je nasprotna zgodba, zato ne pomislite takoj, da sem šarlatan. Na kratko bom opisal moje reference, da boste razumeli od kod prihajam v smislu osnove znanja pri vsem tem. Sem zdravnik, specialist za patologijo, ki vključuje virologijo. Šolal sem se na Univerzi Cambridge v Veliki Britaniji in sem bivši predsednik sekcije za patologijo pri Zdravniški zvezi, bil sem tudi pridruženi profesor na Fakulteti za medicino, kjer sem veliko poučeval. Bil sem predsednik izpitne komisije za patologijo pri Royal College of Physicians (Kraljevem kolegiju zdravnikov) v Ottawi, a pojdimo k bistvu. Trenutno sem predsednik biotehnološkega podjetja v Severni Karolini, ki prodaja teste za COVID-19 in lahko bi rekli, da nekaj vem o vsem tem. Bistvo je preprosto v tem: obstaja popolnoma neutemeljena javna histerija, ki jo vodijo mediji in politiki. To je nezaslišano, to je največja prevara, ki je bila kdajkoli izvedena na nič hudega sluteči javnosti. Ničesar drugega ni mogoče narediti za zadržanje tega virusa kot zaščititi starejše, bolj ranljive ljudi. Na to lahko gledamo nič drugače kot na hudo sezono gripe, to ni Ebola, to ni SARS. Imamo politiko, ki se gre medicino in to je zelo nevarna igra. Ni potrebno nikakršno delovanje razen tega, kar se je dogajalo lani, ko smo imeli gripo. Nisem se počutil dobro, ostali smo doma, jedli piščančjo juho z rezanci, nismo obiskali babice in sami smo se odločili, kdaj se bomo vrnili na delo. Nismo imeli nikogar in nismo potrebovali nikogar, ki bi nam to rekel. Maske so popolnoma neuporabne, ni prav nobenega dokaza za njihovo učinkovitost. Maske iz papirja in blaga so preprosto znak vrline in večinoma se sploh ne nosijo pravilno. Je popolnoma smešno gledati te nesrečne in neizobražene ljudi, ne v smislu kupcev, kako hodijo naokoli kot glodavci lemingi in ubogajo brez osnove znanja in dajejo masko na svoj obraz. Tudi socialna distanca je neuporabna, ker se COVID širi tudi kot aerosol, ki potuje okoli 30 m preden pade na tla. Zaprtja so imela tako strašne nepričakovane posledice, vse bi moralo biti odprto jutri, kot smo navedli v Veliki Barringtonovi deklaraciji, ki sem jo razdelil pred tem srečanjem. In še nekaj o testiranju. Želim poudariti, da sem v poslu testiranja za COVID. Želim poudariti, da pozitiven rezultat testa ne pomeni – debelo podčrtano – ne pomeni klinične infekcije, pač pa samo poganja histerijo v javnosti in vsa testiranja bi morali ustaviti, dokler ne pride v bolnišnico nekdo, ki ima respiratorni problem. Vse kar bi bilo potrebno narediti, je zaščita ranljivih in vsem v domovih za starejše vsak dan dati 3000-5000 IU vitamina D...za katerega se je pokazalo, da drastično zmanjšuje možnost okužbe. In vse bi vas rad spomnil, da statistika naše province kaže, da je tveganje za smrt za ljudi pod 65 letom starosti v tej provinci 1 na 300.000, to vam mora biti jasno. Prekomeren odziv, ki ga imate, brez dokazov zanj, je popolnoma smešen glede na posledice delovanja kot ga predlagate. Razne vrste samomorov, stečaji podjetij, pogrebi, poroke itd...vse to je nezaslišano. Gre samo za hudo gripo in to morate dojeti. Naj se ljudje sami odločajo, politiki se ne vpletajte v zdravstvo. Vodi vas glavni zdravstveni uradnik v tej provinci (Alberta v Kanadi). Jaz sem absolutno zgrožen, da je to šlo tako daleč in jutri bi morali prenehati s tem. Hvala lepa.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/4871000/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=bc98e129291a06c7c919c2f548217bf7&fbclid=IwAR1eipekdVp7FL39ONXICgz0A0s7VJvcq65sR2uFGJJ8giAnZbH3oScG7oc

*

Psihološke posledice zaklepanja https://www.bitchute.com/video/MulYnY8eG3fk/?fbclid=IwAR31yoN_eKaKeBO9UA3oCaC7Y2WXQwIg5QwJRzDaEM9VMUoUaQ0Pi5owFbg

*

Koliko ljudi bo prizadetih zaradi lockdowna Corbett https://www.corbettreport.com/lockdowns/

*

Tarča 26.11. 2020 Gospodarske posledice zaklepanja (lockdown) v Sloveniji

https://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/tarca/174735328

*

strokovna revija Lancet pravi, da naj bi bilo 265 milijonov ljudi zaradi karantene prisiljenih v prehransko krizo. Kot posledica karantene je predvidena smrt 125.000 otrok zaradi podhranjenosti.Zvezni minister za razvoj Müller (CSU) je pred kratkim izjavil, da bodo ukrepi zaradi koronavirusa povzročili veliko več smrtnih primerov kot tistih, ki jih je povzročil sam virus. Zlasti v državah v razvoju so zaradi ustavitve oskrbovalne verige za ključna zdravila pri zdravljenju tuberkuloze, HIV in malarije v stanju delnega kolapsa. CR navaja tudi raziskavo Wellbeing Trust, ki kaže, da naj bi samo letos zaradi karantene 75.000 Američanov umrlo v obupu - vključno z zlorabo alkohola in mamil ter zaradi samomorov.

CR je opozoril tudi na raziskavo, ki kaže, da bo zaradi zamud pri zdravljenju raka zaradi medicinskih zaustavitev, na tisoče ljudi umrlo. Friebel pa povzema, da so v Nemčiji zaradi koronavirusa preložili več kot milijon operacij, vključno s 50.000 nujnimi operacijami zaradi raka. Ocene kažejo, da bi lahko odsotnost zdravljenja lahko pogubila od 5000 do 125.000 ljudi. Poleg tega nešteto drugih ljudi umre, ker se zaradi strahu pred virusom ne zdravijo več, čeprav je njihovo življenje ogroženo.

https://www.zdravo-slovenija.com/tu-in-tam-1/2020/11/25/smrtonosna-resnica-o-karanteni-o-kateri-vsi-molijo?fbclid=IwAR2f7N3Gl57GnbYOJk3kaSVaZy62goWQoZ6uxQbTba-7AmgXoOzdoLMpZFk

*Pomenljivo(povzeto iz Mladine):

Zaprtje šol in vrtcev za podjetja pomeni približno enako breme kot sama epidemija. Približno toliko ljudi, kot je v karanteni, je recimo zdaj po podatkih zavoda za zaposlovanje doma tudi zaradi t. i. višje sile, v tem primeru zaradi skrbi za otroke, ki ne morejo v vrtce in šole. Po podatkih gospodarske zbornice je zaradi okužbe z virusom sedaj odsotnih 3,5 odstotka zaposlenih, približno isto število, 3 odstotki vseh zaposlenih, pa so doma zaradi varstva otrok. Otroška klinika nemške univerze v Regensburgu je ta teden objavila raziskavo na primeru 110 tisoč otrok, pri katerih so si poskušali odgovoriti na vprašanje, ali so ti res asimptomatični, tihi prenašalci. Ugotovili so, da je bilo pri naključnem testu pozitivnih zgolj 0,21 odstotka otrok, na podlagi česar so sklenili, da otroci niso pomembni prenašalci in da morajo ostati šole in vrtci v Nemčiji odprti. V Sloveniji jih je vlada – kljub protestu stroke, ki je na to intuitivno opozarjala – seveda zaprla. Piše Borut Mekina.

https://www.mladina.si/202775/jansa-nekaj-tednov-izpada-sole-lahko-nadomestimo-z-nekaj-tedni-podaljsanja-v-poletje/?fbclid=IwAR0iA_0FMoBjVzeRKZFw_aVSP1rsbG_7-ENNW0-C_DEfOBSNyNOrIfCU5Dk

*

Vodilni britanski patolog prof. dr. John Lee: Ukrepi ne smejo povzročiti več škode kot koronavirus. Če se to zgodi, gre za malomarnost in mislim, da je pristop britanske vlade medicinska malomarnost, ki je v nasprotju s Hipokatovo prisego: Ne škoduj. Vlada je z ukrepi povzročila gospodarsko in psihološko ter zdravstveno škodo, ko ni bilo na primer diagosticiranih na tisoče primerov raka. Lockdown, maske in omejitve - ali so ti ukrepi izboljšali ali poslabšali zdravje populacije?  Če škodujete gospodarstvu, škodujejte tudi zdravju ljudi, ker je to povezano. In vse to počnejo v imenu kontrole virusa, kar je mit in zato mislim, da so lockdown ukrepi škodljivi. Koronavirus SARS CoV-2 se je razširil v populaciji in ne bo ga moč izkoreniniti. Zato se moramo naučiti živeti z njim v ekvilibriju. (dinamičnem ravnovesju).

Vlada podaljšuje čas doseganja ekvilibriuma in sočasno dela nepotrebno škodo. Vlada ne razume tega in zato ne more sprejeti pravilnih odločitev. Vlade sprejemajo ukrepe z enormnimi posledicami brez kakršne koli znanstvene podlage in učinek je slabšanje zdravja ljudi. Koronavirus ubija večinoma stare in bolne ljudi. Ukrepi so največ škode povzročili prav starejši populaciji. V čigavem imenu vlada sprejema te ukrepe? Če bi bil star 80 let, ne bi žežel biti zaklenjen v sobi in ne videti svojih vnukov. Ali je to naloga vlade, ali pa je naloga vlade ocena tveganj in koristi ukrepov, ki jih sprejema. Za mlajšo populacijo je koronavirus manj nevaren kot virus gripe in morali bi jim dovoliti, da živijo normalno. Ukinili so človekove pravice s pretvezo varovanja javnega zdravja. Koronavirus pa nenehno mutira - ali to pomeni da bodo ukrepi večno trajali? V kakšni družbi bomo živeli? Institucije so nefunkcionalne, ker nihče noče prevzeti odgovornosti - znastveniki prelagajo odgovornost na politike in obratno. Članki ljudi kot sem jaz so cenzurirani in javnost ne more videti realne slike o tej pandemiji. Upam da se bo našel kakšen pogumen politik, ki bo spremenil sedanjo smer politike. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ug9RoFbtrg&feature=emb_logo

*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8808609/DR-JOHN-LEE-Test-Trace-doesnt-work-local-lockdowns-dont-make-sense.html

Priznani britanski patolog o nesmiselnosti COVID-19 ukrepov in o tem, da se smrti zaradi gripe štejejo med COVID-19 smrti.

*

Mladi so najmanj ogroženi od COVID-a, vendar je vpliv zaklepanja in zaprtja šol ustvaril zaskrbljujoč porast samomorov med otroki in najstniki. Nacionalna raziskava s 1.000 trenutno vpisanimi srednješolci in študenti, ki sta jo skupaj izvedli dve organizaciji – Chegg.org, študentska raziskovalna skupina ter Fundacija Born This Way, ki se osredotoča na podporo čustvenega in duševnega zdravja mladostnikov – je pokazala, da je 5 % študentov poročalo, da je med pandemijo naredilo poskus samomora. Podatki, analizirani iz nacionalnega programa za nadzor sindroma pri  CDC od 1. jan. do 17. okt. 2020 so v primerjavi z enakim obdobjem leta 2019, pokazali 31% povečanje problemov v duševnem zdravju med mladostniki, starimi od 12 do 17 let.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covids-deadly-toll-youth-suicides/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f8fa725c-3c66-44b3-a261-d688fccd6a99

*

Oseba 

Boris Turk

 je delila povezavo.

Skrbnik

  · 5tS poSunshflored  FB 24.2. 2021

Izvlečki iz članka https://svetkapitala.delo.si/.../nova-studija-razkriva-da... o študiji z naslovom

»Assessing Mandatory Stay-At-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19«.

Študija primerja vpliv politik lockdowna osmih držav na severni polobli: Anglije, Francije, Nemčije, Irana, Italije, Nizozemske, Španije in ZDA. Vse države, ki so se na novi virus odzvale z ostrimi zaporami.

Končni rezultat je naslednji, pojasnjujejo v študiji: »V okviru te analize ni dokazov, da bi bolj restriktivne NPI in lockdowni znatno prispevali k upogibanju krivulje novih primerov v Angliji, Franciji, Nemčiji, Iranu, Italiji, na Nizozemskem, v Španiji ali ZDA. S primerjavo učinkovitosti NPI na stopnje rasti primerov v državah, ki so izvajale bolj omejevalne ukrepe, s tistimi, ki so izvajale manj omejevalne ukrepe, dokazi ne kažejo, da so mrNPI (strožji ukrepi) zagotavljali dodatne pomembne koristi nad lrNPI (lažji ukrepi)«.

[...]

»Lockdown še dodatno ohromi družbo in povzroča travmatično škodo, medtem ko se virus še vedno širi«.

Študija zaključuje, da »v nobeni od osmih držav in v nobeni od 16 primerjav (proti Švedski ali Južni Koreji) učinki mrNPI niso prinesli bistvene koristi«.

https://svetkapitala.delo.si/aktualno/nova-studija-razkriva-da-je-bil-lockdown-napacna-poteza/

*

Mislav Kolakušič: Na Hrvškem zaradi ukrepov ni bilo izvedenih 110.000 urgentnih operacij. Kot vojna industrija ne želi miru, tako farmacevtska industrija ne želi zdravih ljudi. Imamo epidemijo korupcije

https://www.facebook.com/sudacmislavkolakusic/videos/266716181747928

*

https://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/zaradi-koronavirusa-vecje-stevilo-bolnikov-z-napredovanim-rakom.html?fbclid=IwAR3PlqbduULhkSZ2Svl5c8hfPtwcd51-nUPrDcb0DVB_KMfb40xJdO8sPMY

*

15.3. 2021 Marko Potrč o ugotovitvi švedskih strokovnjakov: Ukrepi ubijajo mlade ljudi

https://www.facebook.com/PotrcMarko/videos/857300218461724

 

ŠVEDSKA STROKA: USTAVITE ŠKODLJIVE KO.RONSKE OMEJITVE!

Švedska stroka se prebuja. A tukaj strokovnjakov, ki povedo kot mislijo, ne diskreditirajo.

Gre za članek v enem izmed večjih švedskih medijev, ki je bil objavljen 12. marca, torej pred tremi dnevi.

To je še ena stroka. Ob tem je to stroka iz dežele, kjer imajo v primerjavi s Slovenijo dejansko svobodo in hkrati boljše številke. A se kljub temu oglašajo.

3 zadeve zame osebno ob tem najbolj izstopajo:

1.

Izpostavljena je beseda »RAZPRAVA«, kar je nekaj, kar največji slovenski mediji ne premorejo že od marca lani. Razprave pri nas preprosto ni. Je samo ena, politično motivirana stran. Prav o tem pa med drugim govorijo tudi strokovnjaki v tem članku. O politiki, ki želi vpliv na strokovnem področju, o sumljivo sprejetih zakonih.

2.

Zato, ker se ti strokovnjaki ne strinjajo z neko svetovno usmeritvijo oziroma političnimi težnjami, ko gre za strokovna vpršanja medicine, jih ta medij NI označil domala za bizarneže.

Veljali so za strokovnjake pred tem in to, da povedo svoje strokovno mnenje, ne izbriše njihove strokovnosti, ki so jim jo brez težav priznavali pred tem.

Obratno! Prav zaradi tega imajo njihove besede težo, se jim prisluhne.

3.

To je švedska, kjer ni niti približno takšne represije, groženj ali odvzema pravic in svoboščin kot marsikje. Nimajo policijske ure, zapiranja v občine, mask na obrazih vseh (celo otrok, po več ur v šolah!), prepovedi dela za mnogo majhnih, ranljivih zasebnikov in tako naprej. To počnejo strokovnjaki v deželi, kjer je v primerjavi z večino preostalega sveta oaza svobode. Pa jim je dovolj!

Naj še jasno izpostavim, da tudi ti strokovnjaki govorijo natanko to, kar s pomočjo stroke (!), poudarjam že od začetka;

Potrebujemo dejansko skrb za tiste, ki so ranljivi. Ne prepoved življenja za vse ter odvzem svobode in pravic! Ker v glavnem to ogroža rizične skupine. Ko govorimo o smrtni gorožnji, to NE ogroža več kot 99% ljudi. To je dejstvo.

To dejstvo ponovno podkrepim s študijami:

- svetovne zdravstvene organizcije,

- stroke iz Nemčije (recimo uni klinika Hambrug),

- enakimi ugotovitvami slovenskih zdravnikov

- kakor tudi recimo z uradnimi ugotovitvami švedske javne agencije za zdravje, ki na svojih spletnih straneh jasno navaja, da je nevarnost za smrt od 0,5% do 1%, a ob tem IZPOSTAVLJA, da je JASNA POVEZAVA med starostjo in smrtnostjo.

A tudi, če ste starješi, to niti približno nujno ne pomeni, da boste v vsakem primeru resno ogroženi. Gre za večje tveganje. Ne gotovost. Tveganje.

Konkretna študija recimo za Stockholm;

za mlajše od 70 let je bila umrljivost 0,1%.

A z vsakim letom nižje starosti, ta odstotek še občutno pada!

Ob tem pa so seveda tudi pridružene bolezni igrale vlogo.

Govorijo tudi o absurdni nedopustnosti raznih »cep.ilnih« listin oziroma potnih listov.

Dodajam za vse, ki boste v komentarjih spet zlajnano kričali »ti nisi stroka«;

ne želim biti žaljiv, a v takšnih primerih se resnično vprašam o inteligenci. Torej, ko jaz navajam oziroma predajam besede dejanske stroke, je vaš proti-argument »ti nisi stroka«. Seveda nisem. Zato že vseskozi navajam uradno, resno, kredibilno in tudi preverljivo stroko. Le, da jaz ne dajem prostora izključno priimkom Krek, Beović, Logar in tako naprej.

Prav tako moja postava/izgled ali karkoli drugega ne igra vloge pri dejstvih. Tovrstno napadanje je zgolj primitivno.

Sicer pa tudi kot laiki danes vemo, da je to brez večjih težav prebolelo že na milijone in milijone in milijone ljudi po vsem svetu. Tako »originalno« verzijo, kot tudi vse zloglasne južne, severne in ne vem kakšne nove seve do danes.

Še enkrat pa poudarjam; potrebujemo JAVNO razpravo dejanske stroke! Na nacionalki, na drugih televizijah in nasploh v vseh medijih. Ne potrebujemo zahteve po slepem, pohlevnem, bogaboječem sledenju politično nastavljeni ter politično motivirani stroki v medijih.

Povezava do novice v prvem komentarju pod objavo. Sicer pa lahko poiščete tudi na expressen (pika) se

Spodaj, pod črto, je celoten prevod. Seveda pa lahko tudi sami vstavite v guglov prevajalnik. Za to, da boste dovolj dobro dojeli bistvo, bo gugl dovolj dober.

V videu pa glavni poudarki teh izjav švedskih strokovnjakov iz članka.

Povedal bom ponovno; na podlagi takšnih dejstev je potrebno nemudoma zahtevati umik tega iz prve skupine nalezljivih bolezni. Nemudoma.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREVOD:

USTAVITE ŠKODLJIVE KO.RONSKE OMEJITVE!

Sven Román, glavni zdravnik, specialist za otroško in mladostniško psihiatrijo.

To je zdravniški poziv za zmanjšanje omejitev in izboljšanje zaščite rizičnih skupin.

V razmerah, ko »ko.vid 19« ne predstavlja več akutne grožnje, je uvedba strožjih omejitev kot spomladi 2020 nerazumna, pišejo zdravniki Sven Román, Nils Littorin in Sebastian Rushworth.

RAZPRAVA.

Kot zdravniki in raziskovalci želimo izraziti nasprotovanje škodljivim omejitvam, ki se dogajajo na Švedskem. Pojavljajo se politične zahteve po zaprtju družbe. Številne študije, ki jih je med drugim objavil ugledni The Lancet, kažejo, da lokdovni, namenjeni preprečevanju širjenja »ko.vid – 19«, nimajo dokazanih učinkov.

Zgolj potencialne koristi zaprtja družbe je treba pretehtati glede na dokumentirane negativne učinke, ki jih lokodvn prinaša v obliki onemogočene oskrbe, pomanjkanja obiskovanja šol oziroma šolanja ter izobrazbe, pomanjkanja telesne aktivnosti, izolacije in s tem povezanih duševnih bolezni, poslabšanja javnega zdravja, brezposelnosti in bankrotov.

ZAVAJAJUČA PRIZADEVANJA PROTI OTROKOM

Morda so najbolj napačni ukrepi tisti, ki prizadenejo otroke. Po poročanju ameriške enote za nadzor okužb »C D C«, je »kov.id 19« za starejše nevarnejši od običajne sezonske gripe, vendar je tveganje za smrt otrok manjše kot pri gripi. Kot trdi Švedska Agencija Za Javno Zdravje, otroci in šole NISO gonilna sila pan.dem.ije. Številne študije kažejo, da zaprtje šol ne zmanjša širjenja okužbe v družbi, vendar so lahko učinki izobraževanja na daljavo za ranljive otroke uničujoči.

Otroške športne dejavnosti so bile prekinjene, nekateri tekmovalni športi pa so še vedno omejeni, kar poslabša njihovo splošno zdravje in imunski sistem. Dejstvo, da je celotna generacija slabše izobražena, bo vplivalo na njihove prihodnje možnosti.

V razmerah, ko »kov.id 19« ne predstavlja več akutne grožnje, je uvedba strožjih omejitev kot spomladi 2020 nerazumna. Večina držav, ki so uvedle strožje ukrepe kot Švedska, je imela višjo smrtnost, kar je jasen znak, da metode ne pomagajo. Škoda za družbo je skoraj neizmerljiva in ima dolgoročne posledice.

NA SVETOVNI RAVNI JE UMRLO PRAV TOLIKO LJUDI ZARADI OMEJITEV KOT ZARADI »VI.RU-SA«

Dva najpomembnejša švedska strokovnjaka za globalno zdravje, profesorja Anna Mia Ekström in Stefan Swartling Peterson, sta nedavno, med drugim na podlagi statistike OZN, izračunala, da je toliko ljudi umrlo zaradi omejitev, kot zaradi »vir.us-a« samega. Ker pa te globalne omejitve v glavnem ubijajo otroke, mladostnike oziroma aktivno populacijo, je število izgubljenih let verjetno pet do desetkrat večje zaradi zaprtja družbe v primerjavi z učinki »vir.us-a«.

Obstajajo tudi dvomi o »pande.msk-em« zakonu. Izvršil se je brez ustreznega nadzora in če bi v prihodnosti imeli bolj avtoritarni režim, bi zakon lahko uporabili na zelo uničujoč način.

BOLJE ZAŠČITITE RIZIČNE SKUPINE

Na koncu verjamemo, da se mora povečati zaščita rizičnih skupin. Ogromne stroške sedanjih in morebitnih prihodnjih omejitev je treba preusmeriti v podporo zdravstvu in starejšim. Bilo bi bistveno bolj učinkovito. Tu želimo opozoriti na nekatere odločitve, ki jih lahko sprejmemo danes in ki lahko rešijo življenja:

Odprite več bolnišničnih in intenzivnih namestitev, saj je švedsko zdravstvo nenehno preobremenjeno, ker imamo najmanj oskrbovalnih mest na prebivalca v EU, število IVA mest pa se je v nekaj desetletjih prepolovilo.

Hitri antigenski testi pred delovno izmeno oskrbe starejših ter dodatno usposabljanje osebja za higienske rutine.

Dovolite, da bodo bazeni in knjižnice odprti, ter večje dovoljeno število ljudi v restavracijah in trgovinah.

Ustavite neetičen in nevaren vrtiljak, kjer lahko do 30 zaposlenih obišče iste varovance. Namesto tega uvedite posebno oskrbo bolnikov s pozitivnimi stanji in povečajte plače osebja, da omogočite intenzivna dvotedenska delovna obdobja.

Ustrezno izobražen kader, ki zdaj dela po skrajšanem delovnem času, pretvorite v stalne medicinske sestre in ustvarite zadostne vire zdravstvenega osebja za oskrbo starejših.

Omogočite občinam, da za ogrožene skupine ljudi, ki se v skupnosti lahko okužijo, kupujejo hrano, prevzemajo pakete na pošti itd..

NESORAZMERNO Z DEJANSKO NEVARNOSTJO

»kov-i.d19« je bolezen, ki v glavnem ogroža starejše in bolne. Povprečna starost pokojnika je 84 let, kar je višje od povprečne pričakovane življenjske dobe na švedskem. Osredotočite zaščito na te rizične skupine, medtem pa bi morali mladi, zdravi posamezniki, z nizko smrtnostjo, še naprej delati, se ukvarjati s športom in hoditi v šolo. To je javnozdravstvena smer. Zapiranje šol in omejevanje življenj milijonov otrok je nesorazmerno z nevarnostjo in z vidika javnega zdravja kontraproduktivno.

Seveda bi morali še naprej priporočati socialno distanco, umivanje rok in bivanje doma v primeru simptomov, dokler to ne mine. Poleg zgoraj omenjenih nepotrebnih omejitev bi morali dovoliti tudi kulturne in športne prireditve z določeno publiko, storitve, tekmovanja za otroke v vseh športih, telovadbe za odrasle, zborovsko petje. Dovolite, da bodo bazeni in knjižnice odprti, več ljudi pa naj ostane v restavracijah in trgovinah.

Ustne zaščite za širšo javnost ne bi smeli priporočiti, ker ni dokazov, da ukrep zmanjšuje širjenje okužbe, čeprav obstajajo tveganja za fizično in duševno zdravje.

PREDLOŽITE ANALIZO TVEGANJA IN KORISTI

Po statističnih podatkih švedske statistike imamo od 1. februarja 2021 na Švedskem nižjo povprečno umrljivost kot v preteklih letih in verjetno tudi razširjeno imunost.

10. marca je bilo v celoti cepljenih 84% starejših v posebnih namestitvah (domovih), z oskrbo na domu pa je odmerek cepiva prejelo 63% starejših.

Predlagamo:

Prenehajo se nepotrebne družbene omejitve, vključno z izobraževanjem na daljavo.

Da se načrti za prepustnice za cepivo odpravijo.

Da se poveča zaščita rizičnih skupin

In da vlada in zdravstveno ministrstvo v prihodnosti vedno predstavljata analizo tveganja in koristi za uvedene omejitve.

Avtorji:

Sven Román

Specialist za otroško in mladostniško psihiatrijo

Nils Littorin

zdravnik psihiatrije in doktor klinične mikrobiologije

Sebastian Rushworth

AT zdravnik

Prof. John Ioannidis (February 18, 2021) :

"We have destroyed our economy, we have destroyed our society, we have destroyed our health...we should not destroy our whole world with aggressive measures !... that can be far more devastating than #COVID19"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9szCNNZrPK8

*

Črna plat epidemije: 468 ljudi si je želelo vzeti življenje

Več poskusov samomorov, polna otroška in mladostniška psihiatrija, skokovita rast družinskega nasilja, omejen dostop do psihiatra in daljše čakalne dobe na prvi pregled. Tudi to so negativne posledice epidemije.

https://necenzurirano.si/clanek/aktualno/crna-plat-epidemije-468-ljudi-si-je-zelelo-vzeti-zivljenje-865367

*

Izredno skrb vzbujajoč podatek je, če (ne)dostopnost ponazorimo še na enem primeru, ki prihaja iz onkoloških vrst: med prvim valom je bilo precej manj odkritega raka – za 30 odstotkov manj kot v povprečju. Ta številka se je na srečo potem »popravila«, a v tem popravku ni nič spodbudnega.

Še ena konkretna informacija: vodja ortopedskega oddelka Splošne bolnišnice Dr. Franca Derganca Nova Gorica Danijel Bešič Loredan je konec lanskega leta razočaran sporočil, da je moral na svojem oddelku odpovedati operacije 200 ljudem in da jim ne zna povedati, kdaj bodo prišli na vrsto. Jasno mu je, da slovenski zdravstveni sistem še nikoli v zgodovini ni bil tako nedostopen, kot je v tem trenutku.

»Koliko bolnikov, ki nimajo covida, ne pride do zdravnika, koliko različnih diagnoz – ki morda res niso življenjsko ogrožajoče – se izpusti. Kaj to pomeni za leto 2021, za čakalne vrste, kaj za splošno zdravje ljudi,« so njegove besede. »To, da je danes slovenski zdravstveni sistem nedostopen bolj kot kdajkoli prej, se nam bo vrnilo kot bumerang. Smo na točki, ko bolniki ne pridejo do zdravnika, zdravljenja ni, to se je preselilo v neko virtualno okolje,« je še dejal v enem svojih zadnjih intervjujev za našo medijsko hišo.

https://novice.svet24.si/clanek/novice/slovenija/613c8c0db1bbe/slovenski-zdravstveni-sistem-je-zdaj-nedostopen-bolj-kot-kdajkoli-prej

*

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02143-7/fulltext

*

*

https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-interventions/

MORE THAN 400 STUDIES ON THE FAILURE OF COMPULSORY COVID INTERVENTIONS

*