A friend of mine, Shawn G., sent me the link to an article by J. B. Handley (https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/lockdownlunacy) which meticulously and strongly suggests, if not proves, that most policies used to handle Covid-19 were unnecessary.

It is an article which stands out in that it is very well researched and heavily cited. Yes, it is long, and there are some typos in it. (Please, everyone should have someone proofread their work; otherwise, you look sloppy and possibly Ted Kaczynski-like. But I digress.) I am not going to summarize all the excellent points and evidence contained therein as there are so many that I would basically end up rewriting the article.

I will emphasize a couple of passages, though. Here is one relating to the Imperial College models of the disease’s course through the population of the U.S.:

It’s safe to say that the reason the United States locked down, and the reason the White House extended their lockdowns was almost exclusively due to the models created by Imperial College Professor Neil Ferguson . . . . Oddly, Professor Ferguson has a history of massive overestimation of pandemics, but apparently no one bothered to consider that in taking his advice.

Based on all the evidence presented in the article, J. B. Handley concludes:

When you digest all of the facts we now know about COVID-19, the simplest policy recommendation actually makes the most sense in my opinion: If you have COVID-19, stay home. If you must go out, wear a mask. Everyone else, wash your hands, and get on with your life. It should have been that easy, but instead we chose to lockdown society, an unprecedented step.

I hasten to add, though, that high risk individuals still need to protect themselves as they see fit.

As for the future, the author quotes Dr. D.A. Henderson, “the man who led the public effort to eradicate smallpox,” and his colleagues:

“The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”

There is also an excellent section about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and how his state took care of the vulnerable population of nursing home residents instead of investing in a long-term lockdown. Who would’ve thought I would ever find living in Florida so desirable?

Please read the article. Anyone who is still in favor of lockdown after reading the whole thing, let me know. I am genuinely curious why.