Madison Area Lyme Support Group

As a way of slowing COVID-19 transmission, many countries and U.S. states implemented shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. However, the effects of SIP policies on public health are a priori ambiguous as they might have unintended adverse effects on health. The effect of SIP policies on COVID-19 transmission and physical mobility is mixed. To understand the net effects of SIP policies, we measure the change in excess deaths following the implementation of SIP policies in 43 countries and all U.S. states. We use an event study framework to quantify changes in the number of excess deaths after the implementation of a SIP policy.

We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.

The increase in excess mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following SIP implementation for the international comparison only and occurs despite the fact that there was a decline in the number of excess deaths prior to the implementation of the policy.

At the U.S. state-level, excess mortality increases in the immediate weeks following SIP introduction and then trends below zero following 20 weeks of SIP implementation.

We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies. We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of SIP policies based on pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.

__________________

**Comment**

All we have to do is look at Sweden who took a very different approach to the ‘plandemic.’

In short, this review found the exact same thing stated early on by epidemiologists. It’s also what Israel found, as another study that looked at global data: lockdowns don’t make a bit of difference in mortality.  In fact, they cause adverse effects on health.  The same exact thing can be said of masking.

We need to learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it.  There will be many more ‘plandemics’ to come.  Are we going to allow them to force us to do things that have only damaged people or are we going to say, “enough is enough.”  The approach didn’t work before and it won’t in the future.

___________________

https://www.newstarget.com/2021-10-05-three-quarters-covid-deaths-vermont-fully-vaccinated

More than three-quarters of covid deaths in Vermont are among the “fully vaccinated”

The latest data out of Vermont shows that a whopping 76 percent of all new Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths are occurring in the “fully vaccinated.”

So-called “breakthrough” cases, which we were told are “rare,” actually account for the vast majority of Chinese Virus deaths in the highly “progressive” state, which is one of the most vaccinated in the nation.

Important excerpts:

The Chinese Virus vaccination rate in Vermont is currently 88 percent among people aged 12 and older. This means that the state should be fully protected against the disease with no more deaths.

So much for a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”

The accepted narrative is maintained despite mounting evidence.  The script reads that all of this somehow proves the jabs are working by protecting people against worse outcomes, despite death pretty much being the worst outcome possible. Blind guides continue to state we are in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” therefore everyone must continue to get the clot shots.

Don’t ask questions, don’t hesitate, just roll up your sleeve already and get the jabs despite what you hear, observe, and feel.

The article points out two very very crucial facts:

“The experts keep spouting mortality statistics based on the 500K+ people who died before vaccines were available,” wrote one commenter at Citizen Free Press.

“If you die within 14 days of being jabbed, you are designated as ‘unvaccinated,’ so how do they even know that the eight unvaccinated were really unvaccinated?” asked another.