Where The Lancet Figures It Out

 Almost a year ago I said that the country should re-open completely with the use of what I referred to as The Wuhan Pack.

I operate under the assumption that all 330 million people in America will be infected. 90% of those people are not going to have severe symptoms. That's 297 million we essentially don't have to worry about. Of the 33 million that are expected to have severe cases, we need to have enough of what I'll call The Wuhan Packs to catch them early.

The governments at whatever level should create enough of the 5 day Wuhan Packs (because the treatment is allegedly 5 days of the three medicines) for at least 33 million people. Assuming a once a day dose of each that's 165 million of each treatments. These should be staged at hospitals and pharmacies. If the Abbot quick test machines pan out, they should be distributed to hospitals and pharmacies where people who think they may have the Wuhan virus can get quick tests and immediately get the Wuhan Pack for self treatment. But availability of those machines are not to impact the exit strategy timeline.

This was before Ivermectin. 

I also said the following:

This "lets get it done" strategy gets us to population immunity *assuming* we're not dealing with something like influenza where each year brings a new strain that can knock people down again. But we have a plan on that as well. This is opposed to the moderate probability that returns to normal without a Wuhan Pack strategy will simply lead to another huge wave as the still uninfected and therefore not immune come back into contact with the environment.

Note this was before "variants".  

Remember, at the time of that writing we knew very little relative to now.   Now lets look at The Lancet, a publication that did a hit piece on HCQ.

The collective benefits of herd immunity have become similar to a mantra in mass vaccination strategies, repeated by governments and researchers. However, the prominence of herd immunity being touted as a solution to the pandemic might be about to change with the emergence of immune evasion, a virological game changer that is as important as the arrival of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Dealing with immune evasion will require a re-evaluation of public health strategies, and the creation of a new, evidence-based social contract.

"Evidence Based". Now they are interested in "evidence based"?  

Studies suggest that the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants is correlated with the absence of robust immune protection after first exposure to previous (wild-type) viruses, or even to a vaccine.^1,2 This evolution, associated with the emergence of immune escape mutants, has not only been observed with SARS-CoV-2, but also with other viruses.³

So now you realize that viruses mutate. Imagine that.

"Also, the dynamics of natural or vaccinal collective immunity in the regions where these variants emerged might have placed substantial pressure on the viral ecosystem, facilitating the emergence of a variant with enhanced transmissibility." 

 Translation: The current vaccines may not be effective long term.

"If substantial immune evasion occurs, current vaccines are likely to still offer some benefit to individuals. At the population level, however, they could induce viral selection and escape, making the prospect of achieving herd immunity increasingly remote." 

See previous translation. 

Look. A lot of us said that this may be an issue and we have been (and continue to be) called all kinds of names. 

But keep this thing in mind.

The fervently awaited end of this global health crisis might be continually postponed, as new variants emerge and immune evasion reduces vaccination effectiveness in the short and medium term.

See previous translation.

Hence, it is time to abandon fear-based approaches based on seemingly haphazard stop-start generalised confinement as the main response to the pandemic; approaches which expect citizens to wait patiently until intensive care units are re-enforced, full vaccination is achieved, and herd immunity is reached.

Said this a year ago. 

"To best ensure the success of mass vaccination—whatever its hoped-for impact on transmission—and to slow the emergence of new variants, while avoiding general confinement, governments need to integrate and apply available measures in a way that is much more targeted to different generational groups. Different age groups are not affected similarly by the virus; from March to June, 2020, 96% of additional deaths related to COVID-19 in Europe occurred in patients aged older than 70 years.^{6,  7"}

 They just said that variants make vaccinations less effective but here they're going to show how to make vaccination successful. 

Under this social contract, younger generations could accept the constraint of prevention measures (eg, masks, physical distancing) on the condition that the older and more vulnerable groups adopt not only these measures, but also more specific steps (eg, voluntary self-isolation according to vulnerability criteria) to reduce their risk of infection. 

I will not wear a mask and physical distance. I REALLY won't do it if some shot is coerced upon me. 

Using stop-start general confinement as the main response to the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer feasible. Though attractive to many scientists, and a default measure for political leaders fearing legal liability for slow or indecisive national responses, its use must be revisited, only to be used as a last resort. 

 It wasn't feasible to begin with. 

Now, recall I said to keep in mind the discussion how variants arise. Here's Dr. Wittkowski on variants:

And what we saw was that it backfired in many ways. So one thing that we have seen, and we know since October, when the viruses in Spain and France had been sequenced, we know that because of the lockdowns giving the virus enough time to mutate, we had escape mutations that started the wave in November. So we are currently experiencing the result of the lockdowns. Without lockdowns, we would not have any COVID right now.

I actually heard this before so seeing it again from another expert in the field makes me take notice. What he is saying is that contrary to the logic offered for lockdowns, the lockdowns actually HELPED the virus mutate.

Our immune system develops typically something like five or six different types of antibodies to protect us from mutations that might happen while we are infected to make sure that even if there is a mutation in one of the epitopes, the targets of the antibodies, if there is a mutation, then there should be other antibodies that still are sufficient to prevent the virus from being replicated and from spreading.

However, if you give the long enough and the virus mutates at a rate of one or two mutations a month. So if you give it three months, there’s a good chance that there will be six consecutive mutations, one for each of these antibodies.

And at the end, the human immunity does not capture the virus anymore. And the virus can spread.

We have, even though it’s technically mostly the same virus, but experience as if it were a totally new virus. And this is what we’re seeing right now.

 So those of us who were not hot on vaccines because we realized variants would arise and there could be a situation like Influenza appear to be right. This is why we have been big on therapeutics that are NOT variant specific. We have also been calling for a total re-opening for months. When will the policy makers realize their mistakes in putting their trust in people and organizations with an interest in fear mongering and the censoring of alternate treatments?