I’m not just a lockdown sceptic. I know lockdowns increase infections rather than decrease them because I read research first hand. I’m a citizen in a democracy who wants Government policy to be evidence-based, not epidemiological modelling based. Crazy, I know.

Lockdowns increase infections because they lower immunity & therefore increase the disease. After hospitals & care homes households account for the largest number of transmissions. Schools/universities act as a break in transmission of the disease. All evidence based.
Transmission does not mean infection. I can transmit SARSCoV2 but I can't transmit Covid19. Whether SARSCoV2 develops at all into mild or severe Covid19 depends entirely on the immune system of the recipient. Early treatment prevents severe Covid19, the right treatment cures it.
"Children act more as a brake on infection," said Prof. Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study. "Not every infection that reaches them is passed on."
https://t.co/FokkJhgtzM
Closing schools increases transmission of respiratory viral infection because children act as a break on the community transmission of the virus. We have known this since 1918:
https://t.co/TPRYQ1LAAJ
"We confirm that adding school and university closures to case isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s would lead to more deaths compared with the equivalent scenario without the closures of schools and universities."
https://t.co/99FR4IqbJj
"Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate."
https://t.co/5N06jgA0Bg
"We explored two MODELS DEVELOPED BY IMPERIAL COLLEGE..Inferences on effects of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. CLAIMED BENEFITS OF LOCKDOWN APPEAR GROSSLY EXAGGERATED."
https://t.co/gX6xuQz5EY
There is no correlation whatsoever between mortality rates & lockdowns. There are instead distinct correlations between mortality rates & vitamin D levels:
"Correlations have been shown between the historic prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 mortality per million by country. This has been shown for European countries"
https://t.co/0FwTjxpKtR
There are also noticeable correlations between Omega-3 levels & low mortality rates:
"Global survey of the omega-3 fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid in the blood stream of healthy adults"
Green=High Omega-3 levels
Red=Low Omega-3 levels
https://t.co/h0HzV1Y5gN
Why vitamin D rather than lockdowns reduces mortality:
"Vitamin D deficiency enhances the cytokine storm, thereby, it is a risk factor for and/or a driver of the excessive and persistent inflammation, which is a main characteristic of ARDS and may be considerably lethal in subjects with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection"
https://t.co/vAw4pphsSC
"When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signalling device or 'antenna' known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D,", and if there is an inadequate vitamin D level, "they won't even begin to mobilize." 
https://t.co/RPagpdYkll
Why Omega 3s reduce mortality. Thread: https://t.co/UuZjlc5Bm1
"The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures..we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs."
https://t.co/2STxtMHVmA

More from Robin Monotti

I have now re-examined this document:


It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"

"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."

"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"

"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.


This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.

You May Also Like