'Sweden’s Covid Expert (Anders Tegnell) Says ‘World Went Mad’ With Lockdowns': HE WAS RIGHT, the world did go crazy; SWEDE kids wore no masks to schools, schools not locked down, & NO (0) kids died

by Paul Alexander

see key graphs and evidence: Even WHO's guidance in 2019 did not call for lockdowns and stressed ONLY isolation, quarantine of symptomatic unwell people, basically nothing else! (Sabhlok & Gavrilis)

Not one COVID lockdown, school closure, mask mandate, business closure policy, nowhere, anywhere in the world worked! Not one! That is the legacy of Fauci and Birx and Francis Collins and CDC and NIH, they all are corrupted and failed and we caught them, we woke up, I say late, but still we woke up, and we now move to get accountability. They said the Swede COVID Czar was crazy…he was NOT!

‘The Herby and Hanke meta-analysis concluded that: “The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none”. It added that “lockdowns … 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”.’

SOURCE 1:

Sweden’s Covid Expert Says ‘World Went Mad’ With Lockdowns

 

SOURCE 2:

Lockdowns caused increases in death (Sabhlok & Gavrilis)

SOURCE 3:

Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza

WHO:


Sweden vs the UK (deaths), Sweden not having no lockdown:

Sweden’s death rate for over 20 years shows COVID did not increase deaths:

North Dakota with lockdowns:

South Dakota with lockdowns:

‘The Herby and Hanke meta-analysis concluded that: “The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none”. It added that “lockdowns … 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”.’