FROM MERCOLA The Growing List of COVID Lies

[carol ann parisi]

The Growing List of COVID Lies

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

• February 20, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Lockdowns, social distancing, school and business closures, universal mask wearing, use of face shields and plastic barriers, travel restrictions, the use of PCR tests to diagnose infection, the choice of treatments and the safety and effectiveness of the COVID jabs — all of these countermeasures were based on a combination of lies, fraud and/or willful ignorance
• Universal lockdowns have never before been used as a pandemic prevention measure, and for good reason. It doesn’t work. To prevent spread of infection, you isolate those who are actually sick. Healthy people cannot spread infection, so there’s no reason to isolate them
• An August 2020 analysis of COVID-19 surveillance data from the top 50 countries in terms of reported cases also concluded that border closures, lockdowns and wide-spread testing had no impact on COVID-19 mortality per million people. Another paper published in 2021 found lockdowns were actually associated with increases in excess mortality
• The absence of evidence to support mask wearing for infection control was confirmed from the very beginning by the same agencies and organizations that ended up recommending and/or mandating universal mask wearing
• To avoid making the same mistakes in future pandemics, medical crises must not be managed by means of emergency powers. Emergency powers should be used only in case of war

At this point, the lies we've been told about COVID countermeasures are so numerous, it would be easier to point to what was right and correct than list what was wrong, because the "correct" list would basically be blank.

Lockdowns, social distancing, school and business closures, universal mask wearing, use of face shields and plastic barriers, travel restrictions, the use of PCR tests to diagnose infection, the choice of treatments and the safety and effectiveness of the COVID jabs — all of these countermeasures were based on a combination of lies, fraud and/or willful ignorance. As tweeted by journalist Abir Ballan, co-founder of the Think Twice campaign:¹

"Knowing whether you've been lied to or not is very important for deciding whether you should be angry or not … Turning a blind eye to the lies, won't make them go away. They happened. You need to find the courage to face them."

Here's a review of what some of these strategies actually accomplished, and why we must never allow unilateral edicts by people with emergency powers to dictate pandemic responses ever again.

Lockdowns Flattened Economies

As reported by Pandemics Data & Analysis (PANDA)² — a multidisciplinary initiative that seeks to inform policy — universal lockdowns have never before been used as a pandemic prevention measure, and for good reason. It doesn't work. To prevent spread of infection, you isolate those who are actually sick. That's how it has always been done.

Healthy people cannot spread infection, so there's no reason to isolate them. This is about as common sense as things get, yet the World Health Organization opted to take a page from China, which locked down Wuhan as the infection began to spread.

Lockdowns were, however, a central feature in the Rockefeller Foundation's "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development" report,³ published in May 2010, in which they lay out an international "Lockstep" scenario that details their proposed response to a lethal pandemic.

"After many months of sustained lockdowns throughout the world, we now have empirical evidence demonstrating that they are not only ineffective, but cause greater harm than they seek to prevent and increase mortality. Applying a cure that is worse than the diseases is perhaps the worst manifestation of the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic," PANDA reports.⁴

As one would expect, shutting down businesses for extended periods of time leads to businesses going under for impaired cash flow from lack of revenue. There was never any rhyme or reason for shutting down small businesses while keeping large box stores open, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations.

By September 2020,⁵ 163,735 U.S. businesses had closed their doors, and of those, 60% — a total of 97,966 businesses — were permanent closures.⁶ As noted by attorney Michael P. Senger,⁷ "That 'leaders' across the world transformed into tyrants, believing they had a right to bankrupt their subjects, is the core evil of lockdown."

Indeed, far from being the great equalizer, COVID-19 has been the greatest wealth transfer scheme in the history of the world. Indeed, you may as well call it what it is: grand-scale asset theft from the poor and middle class.

Lockdowns Had No Effect on Infection Rates or Mortality

Meanwhile, study after study^8,9,10 has confirmed that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID mortality. Among them, a study from Northern Jutland, which concluded that:¹¹

"… while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbor municipalities without mandates. Direct spill-over to neighbor municipalities or the simultaneous mass testing do not explain this.

Instead, control of infection pockets possibly together with voluntary social behavior was apparently effective before the mandate, explaining why the infection decline occurred before and in both the mandated and non-mandated areas."

An August 2020 analysis¹² of COVID-19 surveillance data from the top 50 countries in terms of reported cases also concluded that border closures, lockdowns and wide-spread testing had no impact on COVID-19 mortality per million people. Another paper¹³ published in 2021 found lockdowns were actually associated with increases in excess mortality.

A 2022 literature review and meta-analysis¹⁴ of the effects of lockdowns also concluded that "lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality." They have, however, "imposed enormous economic and social costs." As noted by the authors of this review, "lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Modeling Versus Empirical Data

Time and again, we've seen how statistical modeling has failed, making wildly inaccurate predictions about risk. This holds true for lockdown models as well. According to Oliver Robinson, a psychology professor at the University of Greenwich:^15,16

"Lockdowns are associated with reduced mortality in epidemiological modelling studies but not in studies based on empirical data from the Covid-19 pandemic … Lockdowns may exacerbate stressors such as social isolation and unemployment that have been shown to be strong predictors of falling ill if exposed to a respiratory virus …

Economic level of analysis points to the possibility that deaths associated with economic harms or underfunding of other health issues may outweigh the deaths that lockdowns save, and that the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for treating other conditions."

Effects of Lockdowns

Studies looking at the social effects of lockdowns have also come to the following conclusions:

• The unemployment shock, being two to five times greater than the typical unemployment shock, will likely significantly increase mortality rates and lower life expectancy.¹⁷ The authors estimate unemployment shock alone will translate into an additional 0.8 million premature deaths
• Social isolation has led to a significant increase in mental health problems, addiction disorders, overdose deaths, child abuse and domestic violence rates¹⁸ and suicide ideation rates among youth¹⁹
• Lockdowns are at least five to 10 times more harmful to public health in terms of well-being years than COVID-19 itself²⁰
• In Israel, an estimated 500,000 life-years have been lost to lockdowns due to income losses alone²¹
• In England, an estimated 59, 204 to 63, 229 years of life will be lost to four common cancers due to delays in diagnosis during lockdowns²²

The Social Distancing Farce

The evidence behind 6-foot social distancing rules were equally nonexistent. As noted by Ballan in a January 26, 2023, tweet, all social distancing did — and was intended to do — was to make people afraid of each other:²³

"The virus spreads through aerosols in the air. It doesn't matter where you stand. Stickers on the floor don't protect you. They just break social cohesion."

There Was Never Any Support for Universal Masking

Universal masking mandates were also unfounded. As noted by PANDA:²⁴

"There is very limited research on the effectiveness of masks or the potential harms of their prolonged use in the general public. The available literature indicates little scientific evidence that mask-wearing among the general public curbs disease spread."

Remarkably, the absence of evidence to support mask wearing for infection control were confirmed from the very beginning by the same agencies and organizations that ended up recommending and/or mandating universal mask wearing.

For example, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy review paper, published in May 2020, concluded that there's "no evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility."²⁵

Similarly, interim guidance by the World Health Organization, published in June 2020, stated: "At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."²⁶

A systemic review by the Cochrane Library, published in November 2020, supported these views, noting that:²⁷

"The pooled results of randomized trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."

The Cochrane Library's 2023 update, which included 11 new studies, including some COVID-specific investigations, confirmed there still was no evidence to support universal masking recommendations.^{28,29,30,31,32}

A randomized controlled trial³³ in Denmark, which looked at COVID-19 infection specifically, also concluded there was "a non-statistically significant difference between two groups of participants, one requested to wear a mask, the other not wearing a mask," and that masks were ineffective against virus-laden aerosols, as airborne viruses can "penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask."

Similarly, a May 2020 study³⁴ found no difference in case rates between U.S. states that had mask mandates compared to those that didn't, and a British survey³⁵ of infection rates among school children found "no evidence that face coverings, 2-metre social distancing or stopping children mixing was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 or cold infection rates in the school."

Mask Harms Revealed

On the other hand, we now have evidence showing that mask wearing can cause harm, and again, some of this evidence comes from the WHO itself. For example, in its December 2020 interim guidance on masks,³⁶ the WHO noted that mask disadvantages included "a false sense of security," and that:

"Several studies have demonstrated statistically significant deleterious effects [of masks] on various cardiopulmonary physiologic parameters during mild to moderate exercise in healthy subjects and in those with underlying respiratory diseases."

A German registry of reported effects among children found 68% experienced some sort of impairment, such as irritability, headache, poor concentration, reduced happiness, reluctance to go to school, general malaise, impaired learning and fatigue.³⁷

Other investigations have revealed children are exposed to potentially dangerous elevations in carbon dioxide when wearing a face mask,³⁸ and health care workers who wear masks for six or more hours have been found to be at higher risk of respiratory infections due to mask contamination.³⁹ A dozen different volatile and potentially hazardous chemicals have also been identified in medical masks.⁴⁰

PCR Tests Were a Scam From the Start

Video Link

Using PCR tests to diagnose was also a complete scam, as these types of tests cannot tell the difference between an active infection and dead viral debris. Because of this, millions upon millions of healthy people were forced into isolated for no reason.

The false positives were also used to artificially inflate the number of cases and deaths, which were then used to instill fear in the population and keep the pandemic going long after it was over. The short video above details how the PCR test works and why it cannot be used as a diagnostic.

In March 2022, it was also revealed that at-home rapid antigen test kits contain sodium azide, a chemical that can lower your blood pressure and/or cause seizures. Health Canada reported the test kits were improperly labeled, as they did not indicate the tests contained chemicals that can cause unintended effects if accidentally ingested or spilled. I detailed these findings in "Does Your At-Home COVID-19 Test Contain This Poison?"

Banning Early Treatment Was a Crime Against Humanity

As for the global treatment recommendations, they've been nothing short of a crime against humanity. On the one hand, public health experts insisted there was no viable early treatment, and on the other, they rigged the system such that hospitals would only use the most harmful treatments imaginable.

Meanwhile, frontline doctors were successfully treating patients and keeping them out of the hospital with inexpensive and readily available medicines such as hydroxychloroquine and zinc, and ivermectin.⁴¹ But were they lauded for their ingenuity and dedication to saving lives? No, they were "cancelled," censored, deplatformed, brought before medical boards and fired from their jobs. No good deed has gone unpunished these past three years.

Before 2020 was over, several highly successful early treatment protocols had been developed, yet none were officially permitted to be used. Among them:

• The FLCCC treatment protocol — Since then, the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has also developed protocols for those struggling with long COVID and those injured by the COVID jabs. You can download all treatment protocols from covid19criticalcare.com.
• The AAPS protocol
• Tess Lawrie's World Council for Health protocol
• America's Frontline Doctors

Based on my review of these protocols, I developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

Treatment Recommendations Have Been a Disaster

Meanwhile, the treatments that became "standard of care" at hospitals across the U.S. and elsewhere were demonstrably risky and harmful. There's really no telling how many COVID patients hospitals have killed with these protocols, but it's bound to be significant. Two of the most dangerous treatments are ventilators and remdesivir.

By May 2020, it had already become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence,⁴² yet the practice continues to this day. Data from various sources show anywhere from 50%⁴³ to 86%^44,45,46 of all ventilated COVID patients die. Considering these data, hospitals are basically engaged in euthanasia, and they're doing it because its profitable.

In fact, were it not for government financially incentivizing a murderous protocol,^47,48 countless lives would have been spared. When everything is said and done, a COVID patient can be "worth" as much as $250,000 — but for maximum payout, they have to leave the hospital in a body bag.

… the only way to avoid the mistakes of the COVID-19 management in the future is to avoid managing any future medical crisis by means of emergency powers. Emergency powers should be used only in case of war. ~ Yanovskiy and Socol 2021

If we know anything, it's that profit motives can make people commit atrocious acts, and that certainly appears true when it comes to COVID treatment. In the U.S., hospitals also LOST federal funding if they failed or refused to administer remdesivir and/or ventilation, which further incentivized them to go along with what amounts to malpractice at best, and murder at worst.

They Lied about COVID Jab Safety and Effectiveness

Last but not least, they lied about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID shots. Crucially, they do not stop transmission and they do not prevent infection — the two things a real vaccine is supposed to do.

What's worse, we now have evidence showing the shots actually INCREASE your chances of getting infected, as well as your risk of dying, be it from side effects or from breakthrough infection. The meme below from the Think Twice campaign⁴⁹ illustrates the findings of a December 2022 study⁵⁰ quite succinctly.

Emergency Powers for Pandemics Must Cease

As noted by Konstantin Yanovskiy (Shomron Center for Economic Policy Research) and Yehoshua Socol (Jerusalem College of Technology) in a July 2021 paper in which they analyzed the effects of lockdown-based crisis management:⁵¹

"It seems … that the only way to avoid the mistakes of the COVID-19 management in the future is to avoid managing any future medical crisis by means of emergency powers. Emergency powers should be used only in case of war."

I couldn't agree more. Time and again, we witnessed how government leaders misused and abused their emergency powers, proving once and for all that such powers are the tools of tyrants and little more.

[carol ann parisi]

[carol ann parisi]

Did Sweden Get COVID Right?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

 

 

 

• February 20, 2023

Previous

 

 

View More 

Keep These B Vitamins on Your A-List

View More

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• While most other countries instituted stay-at-home orders and shuttered schools and businesses, Sweden did not
• While high schools and universities closed and gatherings of more than 50 people were banned, elementary and middle schools, shops and restaurants have remained open in Sweden during the pandemic
• Evidence suggests Sweden may be at or nearing the herd immunity threshold, which occurs when the number of people susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth
• Stanford’s Nobel-laureate Michael Levitt is among those in support of Sweden’s lighter restrictions; Levitt successfully predicted the trajectory of COVID-19 deaths in China and has stated that the pandemic would not be as dire as many have predicted
• Scientists from France found there was no significant transmission of COVID-19 in primary schools, either among the students or from students to teachers
• Sweden continues to stand by their handling of the pandemic, despite heavy criticism; the country’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, even described the rest of the world’s lockdowns as “madness,” considering the steep side effects they ultimately cause

From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media are key players and have been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

Originally published: July 25, 2020

In the U.S., even as the COVID-19 curve appears to have flattened, and death rates for some groups have fallen to almost zero,¹ dire warnings about an ominous "second wave" continue.

Likewise, Sweden, a country that has handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, is being chided for its looser restrictions and lack of lockdowns, even as data suggest their refusal to implement a full shutdown of their society may have been the best approach after all.

While most other countries instituted stay-at-home orders and shuttered schools and businesses, Sweden did not. While high schools and universities closed and gatherings of more than 50 people were banned, elementary and middle schools, shops and restaurants have remained open during the pandemic.²

Now, news outlets are trying to use Sweden as an example of what not to do to fight COVID-19, citing a high death toll. "The country's mortality rate from the coronavirus is now 30% higher than that of the United States when adjusted for population size," CBS News reported,³ but this doesn't tell the full picture of how Swedes have fared in comparison to the rest of the world.

Sweden May Be Close to Reaching Herd Immunity

If a novel virus is introduced to a population, eventually enough people acquire natural immunity so that the number of susceptible people declines. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, has been reached.

With SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, some estimates have suggested that 60% to 70% of the population must be immune before HIT will be reached, but researchers from Oxford, Virginia Tech, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine⁴ found that when individual variations in susceptibility and exposure are taken into account, the HIT declines to less than 10%.⁵

Independent news source Off-Guardian⁶ cited data from Stockholm County, Sweden that showed an HIT of 17%,⁷ as well as an essay by Brown University Professor Dr. Andrew Bostom, who explained:⁸

"... [A] respected team of infectious disease epidemiologists from the U.K. and U.S. have concluded: 'Naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.'"

And, as pointed out in Conservative Review:⁹

"... Naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 combined with earnest protection of the vulnerable elderly — especially nursing home and assisted living facility residents — is an eminently reasonable and practical alternative to the dubious panacea of mass compulsory vaccination against the virus.

This strategy was successfully implemented in Malmo, Sweden, which had few COVID-19 deaths by assiduously protecting its elder care homes, while 'schools remained open, residents carried on drinking in bars and cafes, and the doors of hairdressers and gyms were open throughout.'"

Off-Guardian continues with Stanford's Nobel-laureate Michael Levitt, who is among those in support of Sweden's lighter restrictions. Levitt successfully predicted the trajectory of COVID-19 deaths in China, including when the deaths would slow, and has stated that the pandemic would not be as dire as many have predicted.

Have Sweden's COVID-19 Deaths Peaked?

What's more, in an interview with The Stanford Daily, Levitt stated in May 2020, "If Sweden stops at about 5,000 or 6,000 deaths, we will know that they've reached herd immunity, and we didn't need to do any kind of lockdown."¹⁰

As of July 17, 2020, there were 5,619 deaths in Sweden due to COVID-19,¹¹ and in a study released by Levitt and colleagues June 30, 2020, which analyzes COVID-19 outbreaks at 3,546 locations worldwide, it's predicted that Sweden's total COVID-19 deaths will plateau at about 6,000.¹²

So far, Levitt is spot-on, and it appears, indeed, that Sweden's COVID-19 deaths have slowed, peaking at more than 100 deaths per day and now, midsummer, tallying in the low teens. The intensive care unit at Stockholm's Sodertalje Hospital has also cleared out, housing 77 cases during the pandemic's peak and only four cases as of July 17, 2020.¹³

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Sweden's Epidemiologist Calls Lockdowns 'Madness'

Sweden continues to stand by their handling of the pandemic, despite heavy criticism. The country's state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, even described the rest of the world's lockdowns as "madness," considering the steep side effects they ultimately cause.

Levitt suggested that not only did lockdowns not save lives, but likely cost lives due to social damage, domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism and other health conditions that were not treated.¹⁴ Bloomberg reported:¹⁵

"'It was as if the world had gone mad, and everything we had discussed was forgotten,' Tegnell said in a podcast with Swedish Radio ... 'The cases became too many and the political pressure got too strong. And then Sweden stood there rather alone.'"

Tegnell stated that shutting down schools was also unnecessary during the pandemic, and scientists from the Institut Pasteur in France indeed found that there was no significant transmission of COVID-19 in primary schools, either among the students or from students to teachers.¹⁶

"The study also confirmed that younger children infected by the novel coronavirus generally do not develop symptoms or present with minor symptoms that may result in a failure to diagnose the virus," study author Bruno Hoen added.¹⁷

Meanwhile, while Sweden has encouraged its citizens to engage in social distancing, mask usage is another story, and Tegnell has stated that there's little evidence for wearing face masks.¹⁸

Stanford Expert Slams Lockdowns

Outside of Sweden, other experts, including epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, have also spoken out against statewide lockdown measures in response to COVID-19. Ioannidis suggests that 150 million to 300 million people may have already been infected globally and may have developed antibodies to the virus, and the median infection fatality rate has remained low at about 0.25%.¹⁹

As continues to be demonstrated, the elderly and those with underlying health problems appear to be most vulnerable, and protecting such populations should have been a priority. But lockdowns for young, healthy people are far more questionable. Speaking with Greek Reporter, Ioannidis said:²⁰

"The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%.

For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities."

Overall, Ioannidis said the mathematical models that predicted hospitals would be overrun by COVID-19 patients were "astronomically wrong," and although a handful of U.S. hospitals did become stressed, no health systems were overrun.

"Conversely," he said, "the health care system was severely damaged in many places because of the [lockdown] measures taken," while lockdown measures have also significantly increased the number of people at risk of starvation while leading to financial crisis, unrest and civil strife.²¹

What's more, one study even found that 81% of people not exposed to SARS-CoV-2 were still able to mount an immune response against it, which "suggests at least some built-in immune protection from SARS-CoV-2 ..."²²

US Surgeon General Opposes Mask Mandate

With mask usage becoming an increasingly polarized debate, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams encouraged mask usage but spoke out against making them mandatory due to concerns that it could lead to rebellion.²³

In my interview with Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics, and a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, we also discussed the controversial topic of masks. Rancourt did a thorough study of the scientific literature on masks, concentrating on evidence showing masks can reduce infection risk, especially viral respiratory diseases.

If there was any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce infection risk to either the wearer or others in the vicinity, then it would have been detected in at least one of these trials, yet there's no sign of such a benefit. He said in our interview:

"It makes no difference if everybody in your team is wearing a mask; it makes no difference if one is and others aren't. Wearing a mask or being in an environment where masks are being worn or not worn, there's no difference in terms of your risk of being infected by the viral respiratory disease.

There's no reduction, period. There are no exceptions. All the studies that have been tabulated, looked at, published, I was not able to find any exceptions, if you constrain yourself to verified outcomes."

This is another area where Sweden has stayed ahead of the curve, as they've resisted asking the public to wear masks based on lack of evidence of effectiveness and the risk that they offer wearers a false sense of security. Tegnell did state that officials are considering whether to recommend masks during use of public transportation, but stressed masks "definitely won't become an optimal solution in any way."²⁴

Sweden Speaks Out Against WHO Warning

In late June 2020, the World Health Organization counted Sweden among European countries at risk of seeing a resurgence of COVID-19. The warning was based on WHO data showing Sweden had 155 infections for every 100,000 inhabitants in the past 14 days, a higher rate than in most of Europe.²⁵

Tegnell, however, said that this was a "total misinterpretation of the data" and WHO was confusing Sweden with countries just at the outset of their epidemics. Instead, any rise in infections is likely due to increases in testing, Tegnell said, adding, "They didn't call to ask us. The number of admissions to intensive care is at a very low level and even deaths are starting to go down."²⁶

Time will tell whether Sweden's strategy, which avoided lockdowns and widespread mask usage, turns out to be the right one after all, but some believe the writing is already on the wall.²⁷

"Dr. Michael Levitt and Sweden have been right all along," Off-Guardian reported. "The only way through COVID-19 is by achieving the modest (10-20%) Herd Immunity Threshold required to have the virus snuff itself out.

The sooner politicians — and the press — start talking about HIT and stop talking about new confirmed cases, the better off we will all be. Either way, it's likely weeks, not months, before the data of new daily deaths will be so low that the press will have to find something new to scare everyone. It's over."