Sharyl Attkisson (FullMeasureNews) spoke with Stanford Professor (and doctor) Jay Bhattacharya on how effective the Covid-19 lockdowns have been after examining the data:
So, the way that we looked at this is we looked at places in particular, South Korea and Sweden, which in the early days of the epidemic did not put in place, mandatory business closures and shelter-in-place orders. And what happened is there’s no difference in the rate of spread in the early days of the epidemic. If you compare the group of countries that had less restrictive versus more restrictive orders. The lockdowns, the very, very restrictive lockdowns did no better than less restrictive policies.
via FullMeasureNews
I highly recommend you go to the link and read the entire thing. It’s a quick read and well worth it.
The professor also talks about errors made in the early prediction of the mortality rate of Covid-19 and about the censorship of anyone who happens to take a position questioning the government when it comes to the pandemic.
Yeah, I think I’m really concerned about that. There’s been censorship of people who don’t agree with the government or with public health authorities, false accusations of conflicts of interest, there’s calls for censorship within science. Anytime someone expresses a view that’s contrary to what Dr. Fauci says, they’re accused of saying dangerous things.
There is an enormous number of scientists, epidemiologists, and other people who don’t agree with the orthodoxy of the policy, the lockdown orthodoxy, but were very uncomfortable saying so for fear of being smeared. I think science is going to have to learn to address that, this sort of group-think mentality and this mentality that attacks outside of it. The science can’t proceed, science can’t work, unless there is the possibility of open discussion without fear of reprisal.
Via FullMeasureNews
Again, I suggest you follow the link and read the interview in its entirety even though I’ve glommed quite a bit of it already.
Dr. Bhattacharya is also a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. It is a “focused protection” approach put forth as an alternative way of handling the pandemic. You can read about it either at the link or a summary story about it here at the BMJ. The declaration currently has over 40,000 signees by medical professionals. It is “controversial” as most things associated with Covid-19 are these days, but I fall on the side of having as much information as possible and making up my own mind rather than wanting someone censored or cancelled for challenging a viewpoint.
You can read and decide for yourself.
Pot Full of Frogs 
If science and investigation doesn’t sometimes controversial, what use is it!