So,
The second lockdown has commenced in Utah with the restriction that only people who live in your house are allowed in your house. Your reaction to this over-reach that goes way beyond what we could have ever imagine happening in the United States is probably similar to what mine was. This isn't the USSR, after all, but before you run off to post your rant on LieToYourFacebook which will just get censored anyway, hear me out. I have been doing some research on the logic behind the lockdown and I've had a change of heart. Let me share my findings with you to see if you too will come around to the right way of thinking. For some people, the thought of going through logic may sound tedious so I'll use an analogy as I go to help clear up the logic while hopefully making it less boring.
The quick and dirty of the lockdown logic comes down to this: the number of dangerously contagious people in society is skyrocketing and therefore, we need to separate everyone from everyone. It does impose on those that aren't a risk and those not at risk but the the virus is so deadly that it justifies the oppressive measure. Until the United States becomes a truly 1984 police state where people wear or are implanted with biometric devices that signal when they are sick and surveillance is so complete that we know everyone that sick person has come in contact with, we have to use this less precise approach. Luckily, the goal is to have the better solution in place by 2030 so it won't be long before mass lockdowns are a thing of the barbaric past that we'll be able to laugh at.
The problem we are trying to deal with is that people with C1984 are dangerous to everyone else in the population and should be isolated from everyone else. By doing this, we can stop this cold virus from killing every human being on the planet. For our analogy, we'll say that people who have accidents on the freeway where the speed limit is typically 75 mph (121 kph) or 80 mph (129 kph) on more remote stretches of road are dangerous to everyone else on the freeway. The high speed on these roadways means that accidents are much more likely to result in serious injury and death than on roads where cars are traveling much slower. Obviously, steps should be taken to remove these dangerous drivers from the freeway before they have an accident. To help get funding and public support for increased safety measures, we need to demonstrate just how dangerous the situation is by reporting the extraordinarily high numbers of accidents that are occurring at the present. How can we do this?
The key to knowing how bad things are and what actions are required is to identify the dangerous people. With drivers, we enforce various traffic laws to keep cars in their respective lanes and at a safe speed. Those that continue to violate these laws are deemed dangerous and their driver license is suspended with the intent of keeping them off the roads, hopefully preventing accidents that they would have caused. With C1984, the common approach to identifying dangerous people is PCR testing.
Lots and lots of PCR testing. Testing has skyrocketed around the world. In Utah, the number of tests being done now is about 500% more than it was in April. In the UK, I've heard the difference is about 20,000%. You might think that by doing that much more testing, it might be natural to see a correlation in the number of "cases". You're on the right track. If you look at the number of accidents on the freeways now compared to 50 years ago, you would expect there to be more accidents now based on the number of additional cars on the road. You might ask, "but is this justification to completely outlaw driving or lock everyone in their houses?" Maybe not but it's a good way to ensure that the number of cases does go up somewhat dramatically and is a good first step toward that justification.
What if there was a way to magnify the "cases" beyond what people might expect? If you tested 5 times as many people and rather than getting somewhere around 5 times as many cases, you got 23 times as many cases using April 1 and Nov 1 in Utah as an example. Now, we're definitely talking justification for removal of all human rights from the populace. The virus has come back with a vengeance. The people should feel lucky that we allow them out to get groceries. We could have the national guard deliver meals on wheels and put everyone on house arrest (without the actual arrest, house detention).
To accomplish this, we test as many people as possible as outlined above using PCR tests and call any positive results "cases." There are several reasons why the use of PCR tests is vital for this logical lockdown.
First, and possibly most importantly, PCR tests do not test specifically for C1984. They are testing for viral RNA, any viral RNA. If you have a cold, a coronavirus, that isn't C1984, it will still return a positive result. In our crash analogy, it means that we can count people who back up into a light pole in the grocery store as a freeway accident. This doesn't carry the same risks as crashing at 80 mph but you have to remember that we aren't looking for truth or reality, we are looking for justification to lock people in their houses, keep them from associating with each other, destroy the economy, and make them more willing to accept the 1984 solutions presented when their lives are in complete ruins.
The viral RNA doesn't even have to be a close cousin to C1984. According to the CDD and FDA, PCR tests will test positive for bacterial pathogens. That means that in addition to adding people who run into light poles in a parking lot to our count of freeway crashes (cases), we can add people who ride their bicycle into a mailbox as well.
It gets even better though. We can manipulate PCR tests so that they detect viral RNA that is long dead and inactive. This is done by adding cycles to the test. Basically, that means that we look for finer and finer tiny bits of viral RNA. RNA that is no longer alive and no longer contagious. We can get a positive result by testing someone who had a cold 6 months ago. We can test asymptomatic people who are asymptomatic because they don't have C1984 and never have had it and get a positive result. So, now in our count of freeway accidents, we can add to today's number anyone who has crashed (car or bike, freeway or parking lot or mailbox) in the past. Dr. Falsey says that cycles should be limited to 35 or less to reduce the chance of picking up traces of dead RNA. Other doctors say that it should be 33 cycles or less. If you are actually looking for contagious RNA, it should be 24 cycles or less. Companies are testing using 37 cycles, 40 cycles, and there is one using 45 cycles. By doing this, we make it almost a sure thing that the test comes back positive and gets added to the number of "cases." I'm sure you can see how useful this is in justifying a lockdown.
It should be pointed out that the FDA recommends that PCR tests not be used for diagnosis because they don't point to a definitive disease. We will need to ignore that and pretend like these tests were created for detecting C1984. I'm sure you understand that this is something that must be done in order to justify lockdowns.
Here's the frosting on the cake. PCR tests return positive results if the person has the antibodies that makes them immune to C1984. I mean, it doesn't get much cooler than that. We can add to our freeway crash numbers people who live in places where there are no freeways, where it is physically impossible for them to be in an accident on a freeway. Seriously, this one doesn't score us as many positives as the healthy people who were sick with some kind of disease at some point in their lives but there is just something very empowering about telling someone that can't contract the disease that they have it. In your face!
As you can see, by increasing the number of people being tested and increasing the number of "cases" of this deadly virus exponentially, we have justified any and all unconstitutional or inhumane solutions, including lockdowns. Easy, peasy, lemon, squeezey.
And that's where you must stop the logic. If you take the next logical step, you completely undermine all of the work that has been done to this point so we won't do that. For those of you that are happy that lockdowns have been justified and reinstated on the populace, stop reading here. For those of you who are curious about the next logical step, read on but remember that this is something that will not be implemented because it completely derails the agenda.
In our car analogy, if you were told that freeway car crashes had increased by 23 times over a time period, you would have some expectations. BTW, for those that are curious, the number of crashes in the United States has been essentially flat when factoring in the increased number of cars. If there are 5 times more cars, there are about 5 times more accidents, as you might suspect. Those of you who came to this conclusion earlier in regards to the number of tests being given really were on the right track. Anyway, if instead of a direct correlation (5 times), you instead had 23 times more accidents reported by the media, you might expect to see:
- Crashed cars all the time on the side of the freeway
- News stories about how tow truck companies can't keep up with demand
- News stories about the trillions of dollars insurance companies are paying out
- Friends and family members who had been involved in some of these accidents
- Maybe even someone in your own household involved in at least one of these accidents
In short, you would rightfully expect to see a reflection in the real world of what was being reported by the government and propaganda sources.
This extremely deadly virus (which is still much less deadly than the boring old flu) has seen "cases" go through the roof, 23 times more now than in April for Utah. We should be seeing the number of deaths going up in a similar manner. You would think they would go up somewhere between 5 to 23 times as much, if this virus is so deadly and so many people have it. Sadly, for our justification, the number of deaths is completely typical for this time of year. We aren't seeing any correlation at all between "cases" and death. This is why it is vitally important that we keep hammering away with "cases, cases, cases" and steer clear of any mention of the deaths or the dreadful lack thereof. If we point this out, it would show that either the virus isn't that deadly or that there really aren't that many people who have it (kind of ruining the whole "pandemic" angle we're going for). Just between you and me, it's both and this is something that we can't talk about at all or it will completely destroy the logic justifying mandatory masks and lockdowns. Remember, the mantra for today is "cases, cases, cases" and let's see if we can get even more people tested with these completely unreliable, easily manipulated PCR tests.
We just need this to last a little bit longer. We are working on our next scam, COVID-21. We know that COVID-19 basically died off around June and we're asking you to really flog a dead horse by going along with this paper-thin justification but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Soon, we'll hit them with the new and improved (meaning more deadly or, at least, scarier sounding) scam pandemic and we can let go of 19.
For any of you that skipped the section on what to avoid and are looking for some kind of conclusion paragraph, I'll say this. I think it has been clearly and logically demonstrated that lockdowns are completely justified and we are taking steps to make sure that they remain completely justified for the foreseeable future. Spread the good news to everyone, especially those who have been wearing masks for so long that the reduced oxygen intake and increased CO2 intake has impaired their critical thinking ability.