There is a new study that proves hard that the effect of a lockdown is nil.
Before the lockdown, there was little evidence that keeping a distance is useful, but it has again been shown that, despite all good intentions, it has been futile.
Correlation means that there is a connection between 2 factors. In causation it is even stronger, there is not only a connection, but one factor even causes the other
For example, you can demonstrate a correlation with the following graph: there is a relationship between age and comorbidity (number of diseases besides corona).
As you can see, the number of diseases increases with age. You can now reason for yourself what the causality is: do you get older because you get more diseases or do you get more diseases because you get older?
Now an example of a graph where no correlation can be found.
The x-axis shows the gravity of lockdown measures for a country or state and the y-axis shows the number of corona deaths per million inhabitants.
Conclusion: Consistent with observations that imposition and lifting of lockdown has not been observed to effect the rate of decay of the country reproduction rates significantly, our analysis suggests there is no basis for expecting lockdown stringency to be an explanatory variable.
So here it says: there is zero correlation, let alone some causality.
A lockdown is therefore pointless. It is better to do a rain dance with a full moon and a sprout of parsley in your ears. This probably has more effect than applying a lockdown.
RIVM suspects that there is a causal link between the lockdown and the decrease in the number of deaths from corona. The Netherlands introduced a lockdown at the beginning of week 12 between 10 and 17 March.
Below the graphs of 2018 and 2020.
Do you see any difference in the form of the graph emerging in 2020 compared to the 2018 line? Not me. This graph neatly shows the natural course of a severe winter flu. This also shows that a lockdown does nothing.
The OMT vets and virologists are probably very good at staring through microscopes and selling vaccines, but their strength is not in interpreting data and graphs.
The goal of the lockdown was to flattten the curve. The curve has been flat for 3 months as you can see. Why are there still measures and emergency laws? Since when did the goal change, did I miss something? Who still understands it can say it.
Or are we developing a new corona religion with the 1.5 meter measures as one of the unproven rituals, Hugo de Jonge as the chief priest and the media as the proclaimers of the new faith? It is a confusing time, and I hope that we all wake up in time from this bad dream.
C. van Rijn, insurance physician
Here the video we were allowed to post last week by Dr. van Rijn:
The Lockdown with social distancing is a disproportionate intervention on a problem comparable to a major flu wave. “I decided to sue van Dissel at the end of April. I was quite awake about that. You don't lose a colleague doctor quickly. ” In this video, doctor Dr. van Rijn calmly (almost monotone) lists all the pros and cons and mercilessly fillets the absurdity of the lockdown. It turns out that no lives may have been saved with the lockdown. It also emerges that the number of life years lost, as a side effect of the lockdown, will certainly rise to a high. He also mentions that it gradually became increasingly clear that the virus is less deadly than feared, but that RIVM and the media failed to mention it en masse. He also thinks that the chance of an effective vaccine is negligible. He further explains why he sued van Dissel and how you might be able to help.