LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
December 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – “We don’t want to have lockdowns. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself!” President Trump tweeted after learning that yet more restrictions would be imposed in the U.K.
The President’s tweet shows the BBC press release in which Johnson announced a spectacular U-turn on restrictions over the Christmas period. Until then, Johnson had arranged with his cabinet, and with the leaders of the devolved administrations (Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland), to unify their efforts at making a five day period, over Christmas, of greater relaxation for families to meet and celebrate the feast.
It had previously been announced that, through these talks, the government reached an agreement: a window from December 23 to 27 in which people could meet in larger groups than normal and from more households, forming what he called a “bubble.” But only days later the PM burst the bubble, defying his own promise to the nation. “I want to be clear,” he had said, “we don't want to ban Christmas, to cancel it. I think that would be frankly inhuman and against the instincts of many people in this country.”
However, that weekend he announced that “[w]hen the facts change, you have to change your approach.” With these words he ushered in a yet unseen “Tier 4,” beyond the previously highest “Tier 3” that had been outlined in England. Health Secretary Matt Hancock defended Johnson’s decision to turn back on his promise, claiming that “[w]ell we don’t want to do any of this, but it’s necessary.”
Hancock added that “[w]e don’t know how long these measures are going to be in place. It may be for some time until we can get the vaccine going…It is going to be very difficult to keep it [the virus] under control until we have the vaccine rolled out.”
President Trump’s claim that “the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself” does not stand in isolation. In fact, a number of high-profile figures in both Europe and North America have voiced concern over the long-term effects of the lockdowns whilst expressing scepticism over any benefits from the impositions.
One such voice is Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens. From the very beginning of the COVID “pandemic”, Hitchens has drawn attention to the lack of evidence supporting the widespread claim that lockdowns save lives. He points out instead that the supposed “cure” to be found in the restrictions is actually worse than the poison itself.
“As I have pointed out from the start, there is no evidence that the repeated throttling of our society and economy has saved a single life. Plenty of research confirms this,” Hitchens said in reference to an entry in the journal Public Health. The article notes that the “[s]tringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.”
“By contrast,” Hitchens says, “we do know that it has cost many lives, through postponed operations and lost opportunities to treat undiagnosed sicknesses, and through the misery, mental illness and despair caused by the crushing of normal human society and the mass destruction of jobs and livelihoods.” The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself.
A source Hitchens has often cited when speaking of lockdowns is ex-Supreme Court Judge Lord Jonathan Sumption. Lord Sumption is a jurist of considerable standing in Britain, having been appointed a Queen’s Counsel at just 38 years of age and serving on the Supreme Court for 7 years, before handing in his mandatory resignation after turning 70.
Writing for The Telegraph on December 19, Sumption notes that lockdowns are “unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply.”
He points out that the “savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise” have been no more effective at containing the spread of COVID-19 than the “purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's.”
Sumption laments the mantra of the government who frequently remind us “not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts.” “Truth is,” Sumption concludes, “our past efforts have been useless.”
In Ontario, Canada, where the lockdown has been particularly harsh, two prominent doctors have spoken out against the burdensome restrictions being imposed globally. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, CEO and Medical Director of Western Medical Assessments, blasted the COVID-19 measures, saying that “[a]ll of this is draconian … first of all because they have no basis in evidence-based medicine, and secondly because of horrendous consequences of that action.”
He went on to explain: “We’re talking, of course, about an enormous number of businesses—ferocious, hardworking, entrepreneurial people who are seeing their dreams disappear. We’re talking about delayed cancer investigations and treatment. We’re talking about cancelled surgeries. We’re talking about suicides and drug addiction.”
Hodkinson’s comments were echoed by another Canadian native, Dr. Gil Nimni, who tweeted: “COVID exists and people get sick,” but that the “response is disproportionate to the problem. Lockdowns are not the answer. Need more balanced approach. That’s all I’m saying.”
Nimni added that when governments lock countries down, “that translates into people not seeking care for things they should. You see a lot of late presentation in things that should have been dealt with weeks earlier. Those are the concerning issues.”