Which of the “facts” about COVID 19 have now been proven to be the most obvious lies? Is it the first lie, that the virus lives for up to 21 days on a hard surface, along with the claim a person who touches that surface during that time and then touches their face will become infected? Is it the lie that droplets are the primary source of transmission of the virus? Now, I realize the claim can be made that those two circumstances were honest mistakes, that more information as it became available simply disproved initial understanding of the virus. That line of reasoning leads me, though, to my conclusion about the greatest lie associated with COVID 19.
“We just do not know”: I believe that to be the biggest lie. The context from which I derive that conclusion is described below.
COVID 19 is not the first SARS virus to arrive on planet earth. The first identified SARS virus made its appearance about 15 years ago. It, as is the case with what is now known as SARS-2, originated in China (that statement, although controversial, I suggest is absolute. Denial of that view seems to me a candidate for the greatest lie). SARS-1 was the subject of unrelenting study for these 15 years. Because SARS-2 is at least a very close cousin to SARS-1 there was actually a great deal known about SARS-2 before it made its appearance. For instance, first, mask studies done during that time period clearly indicated the type of masks worn by the general public did in fact not reduce transmission of the virus, and in fact were determined to likely cause more harm than good to the general public. Second, study of possible treatments for SARS type viruses proved hydroxychloroquine, and other already available antiviral medicines, were an effective treatment to reduce the severity of symptoms of SARS type viruses, but not a cure for that type of virus. Third, it was understood from those studies that antivirals, including hydroxychloroquine, must be administered early in the course of the illness to provide maximum benefit. Fourth, it was absolutely determined lockdowns of exactly the type used for the last 11 months in this country will not significantly reduce the final number of cases or the number of fatalities from the virus, and in fact will likely increase the total number of cases and fatalities. Fifth, all study indicted the primary mode of transmission of the illness was aerosol, not droplets or surface transmission.
While certainly not an exhaustive list of what was known about SARS viruses before SARS-2 arrived, I hope the list above provides context for the premise that “We just do not know” was a magnificent lie in the beginning, and was, in fact, the foundation from which the unreasoned fear and the corresponding government over-reaction was developed.
The “foundation” of the greatest lie was built up on a daily basis. Hydroxychloroquine has not been proven to be an effective treatment for the virus and is actually a dangerous drug and must be made illegal for the treatment of COVID 19. Restrictions of various activities, described as lockdowns, and mask wearing are the only possible methods to reduce the catastrophic impact of the illness until a vaccine becomes available. South Dakota has become a killing ground for the virus because that Governor refused to mandate lockdowns or mask wearing when in fact that state has had one of the best overall results from their COVID 19 measures. The heroic measures of the New York Governor, by contrast, were widely lauded even though his state has one of the highest case and mortality rates in the country. We will “get through this together” became the mantra of the day even as the rule makers continuously broke their own rules. As the general public became increasingly mask compliant the virus spread more rapidly.
How did Sweden know better than nearly every other country how to manage COVID 19? It is not a mystery. Their leaders simply designed their initial measures on the science developed from study of SARS-1, and then refined their measures based on the actual effects of the virus in their country. They did not politicize the illness, they did not pander to the “specialists” demanding control of every aspect of life in Sweden. They actually began with and continued to be guided by what was known, directed by real science rather than thinly veiled lies.
If the reader accepts to any degree the premise presented above the obvious question is: Why would the leaders of the U.S.A., or any other country that so badly managed this illness, be party to the widespread catastrophe from measures so obviously based on a great lie?
I suggest there is a relatively simple answer to that question as well. It is the subject, though, for another time.