When I first was looking into SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in March, a key target group was known. This was the elderly, the immune-compromised, and those with preexisting medical condition or co-morbidities. These were known to the be the majority of people that would be most severely affected by the infection.
The elderly were the largest group that needed protecting in society. But, rather than focus the tax-sourced money and resources to protect this most vulnerable group, governments decided to target everyone "equally". Rather than lockdown and isolate the elderly to keep them safe while everyone else went about their lives normally to develop a herd immunity and be unable to infect the elderly, everyone was put into lockdown and isolated.
This didn't even protect the most at-risk group. The one group we knew would be most affected. And they weren't the primary focus to prevent deaths.
In fact, in the most devastated place in the US was in New York, where Governor Cuomo decided to force nursing homes that care for the elderly to accept COVID-19 patients. Forced them. The result? Thousands of nursing home elderly dead, over 5,000. Way to go genius.
What has Cuomo said recently about his order to force nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients? He was wrong. he said the nursing homes didn't have to obey it, they could have challenged it. What a piece of shit. He's telling people that when he gives orders, you don't need to obey, after the fact. That they are just "suggestions". But when he makes them, he expects you to obey and that they aren't "suggestions".
This "leadership" decision was almost as if it was meant to produce more deaths and justify more government lockdowns and isolations. Either that, or he's a colossal idiot who doesn't have anyone with any brains advising him on these medical-based decisions. Just keep elderly COVID-19 patients with other elderly people in a place where all the elderly are grouped together. Nothing could go wrong there.
A lot of deaths could have been prevented if that was the goal. But the deaths per age group match the flu mostly, with about 4% less middle aged people affected and 4% more elderly affected in the death counts we have. Those inflated death counts where someone dying of cancer or dehydration from neglect is a "COVID-19 death", but that's the numbers we have to go on. It could be that only 1/2 the deaths are actually from COVID-19, or less, we don't really know.
Looking at the nursing home fiasco regarding the "protection" and "safety" that the lockdown was supposed to bring, 1/3 of all alleged "COVID-19 deaths" in the US come from nursing homes.
Bodies just kept dropping, and they still didn't do anything about it as it was happening. Cuomo just says "oops, I was wrong, move along".
The US isn't the only one screwing it up. The same happened in Italy. And in Canada, the chief public health officer Theresa Tam said that about half of the counties alleged "COVID-19 deaths" (like when you die of dehydration) are from nursing homes. And she said this back on April 13th.
Surely, with such knowledge, they would have refocused their time, money, resources and efforts to protect them more than focus on everyone else in the country? Nope.
On May 7th, Tam gave an update, and now the nursing homes deaths represent a whopping 82% of the total alleged "COVID-19 deaths".
Now, consider these numbers may be inflated too. Many elderly could have passed for various reasons, like neglect resulting in dehydration, which I know one case of personally. The elderly are the most affected by viral infections like the flu and what is being called COVID-19. But it seems most of the elderly deaths are coming mostly from nursing homes, as opposed to the general population being included as well.
Regardless, knowing the elderly were greatly affected by this illness when it started in March, and confirming that with numbers in April, you would think they would have acted upon it to prevent deaths in nursing homes. Yet, they didn't.
While countries are locking down the whole population, they are preventing herd immunity from developing where 99.99% of people in the non-elderly population will survive the infection. If everyone was immune by letting the virus spread, the elderly could have been kept in lockdown and isolated for a short period of time, and everyone would have been immune. This would have protected the elderly the best. Death rates would be much lower.
The lockdown didn't work. We were all hiding inside, and the virus still spread. In NY, 2/3 of hospitalized patients for COVID-19 had been isolating at home. If the lockdown measures were truly effective, this wouldn't be happening.
The virus is infecting people, despite people isolating and locking down. I think an unrecognized vector is that it may be aerosolized like pollution. There is a study linked pollution to high COVID-19 death rates. Viruses also travel across continents in aerosolized forms. As much as the current data -- with the inflated death counts --- shows that COVID-19 is akin to a more severe flu season, it could still be spreading through the air with pollution. In severe cases, it acts more like hypoxia, like the cyanide in our pollution.
While the 99.99% of us that won't be severely affected are locked down and isolated, we don't develop herd immunity fast enough from letting it sweep through the healthy population. More elderly are going to be at risk for a longer period of time. If the government is going to try to help keep anyone "safe" and "protect" them with lockdowns or isolation, they should focus on the elderly. This is why you need to get off the corona-phobia bandwagon.