lockdown repercussions

Dr. David Nabarro, the World Health Organizations special envoy on COVID19, has called the lockdown repercussions a global catastrophe.

In an interview with The Spectator, he emphasized that the WHO actually does not recommend lockdowns as a primary means of virus control and even recommends avoiding it if at all possible.

Citing such problems as the doubling of poverty and malnutrition in children by next year, Dr. Nabarro’s concern over the extended lockdowns that have ravished the globe is economic. 

“Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

Of coarse reviewing the data independently draws these type of conclusions.  We discussed the need to end the lockdowns when the CDC made their revision to include comorbidity data. 

It was in the early months of this ongoing disruption of normal life that the WHO was actually warning against ending lockdowns.  CNBC reported back in May:

Before any country begins to lift restrictions, it should have the epidemic under control, ensure that its health systems are able to cope with a potential resurgence and have necessary testing, tracing and isolating infrastructure in place, Tedros said.

It should be obvious what would change these types of recommendations.  The question is, why now?  Why after so long when the evidence was so clear that the lockdown repercussions are far deadlier than the virus they’re intended to combat?

By Josh Earwood

Josh has been an activist, citizen journalist, and commentator since 2013. He spent two years as a broadcast journalist, and has written for various groups in various capacities over the years. He has always been vocal, encouraging others to understand what is going on in the world around them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *