The government ignored experts & data opposing a lock down

Data and basic maths prove Arden and Bloomfield were wrong to lock down New Zealand.

UPDATE: This post has now had over 20,000 views. PLEASE share on FaceBook, Twitter etc with as many people as possible. We need to call out the fact that this government has wrecked our country and economy by completely over-reacting and ignoring data that didn't fit with their narrative.  

Thank you, 

Alex Davis.

On March 17th   eight days before New Zealand entered lock down Professor John Ioannidis, one of the world’s most cited medical researchers published an article warning that the world was rushing into a series of panic stricken responses to Covid-19 on the basis of data that was “utterly unreliable.”

Time is now proving Professor Ioannidis correct.

There has been an endless sea of New Zealand “experts” on Covid-19 so it is worth establishing Professor Ioannidis’ credentials for the simple reason that he stands head and shoulders above those the New Zealand government has been listening to.

He is medical doctor and a Professor of Epidemiology, Population Health and Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University, where he holds the Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention. In 2005, in one of the most widely cited and acclaimed research papers ever, he quite literally proved that “most claimed research findings are false.” The full list of his many achievements can be found here. In short, his credentials establish him as one of the world’s preeminent authorities on data and epidemiology.

In March Professor Ioannidis repeatedly warned that:
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. 
In particular, he pointed out that there was no evidence that lock downs work:

In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work.
And worst still governments had no idea of the unintended consequences of the “draconian countermeasures” being adopted:

we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health… At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.
Tragically for billions of people around the globe, governments almost universally ignored Professor Ioannidis and stripped their citizens of fundamental civil liberties leading to a catastrophic collapse in economic activity and an astronomical surge in unemployment. Meanwhile the government’s cheerleaders in the mainstream media have largely ignored contrary opinions and the courts have been cravenly complicit.

While all this was going on Professor Ioannidis did what he does his best – he gathered data. And that data now presents damning evidence against the government.
In separate studies conducted in California Professor Ioannidis’ team found that the number of persons likely infected with Covid-19 was 28 to 55 times (those aren’t typos) higher that the official figures suggested. Most of these individuals were completely unaware that they had contracted Covid19 due to the  fact (as has now been unequivocally established) in the vast majority of individuals Covid19 has no or only very mild symptoms.

The implications of Professor Ioannidis’ findings are enormous and to prove this we turn to basic maths. If we have 10 deaths from a disease among 100 people infected then in simple terms the Mortality Rate (deaths from those with the disease) is 10% (10/100).

However, if that bottom number (the denominator for those that remember maths) expands by a factor of 50 then mortality rate collapses, by (you guessed it) a factor of 50.

And this is precisely what Professor Ioannidis’ data demonstrates: the number of asymptotically or mildly infected is far, far higher than reported and accordingly the actual lethality of Covid-19 is far, far lower than breathless media and the government’s Covid19 briefings suggest.

How low exactly? For under 65’s your chance of dying with Covid-19 is about the same as being killed on your daily commute to work. And even those over 65 years old who also live in global hotspots like New York or Italy the likelihood of death was “remarkably uncommon.” This of course is not what sells newspapers or garners eyeballs, so regardless of the evidence the main stream media continues to lead with ghoulish pictures of coffins and mass graves (despite the fact that for example mass graves on Hart Island in New York are relatively common even today for unclaimed bodies).

Critically, Professor Ioannidis’ data is not unique. In a study in Massachusetts nearly one third of individuals who gave a drop of blood to researchers tested positive for antibodies linked to COVID-19, a number vastly higher than official figures would suggest. In a further study from Boston, of 397 individuals tested at a homeless shelter 146 people tested positive (36%) and not a single one had any symptoms. It should be noted that this is despite the fact that the homeless frequently exhibit significant health issues and compromised immune systems. Dr. Jim O’Connell, president of Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program stated:

“It was like a double knockout punch. The number of positives was shocking, but the fact that 100 percent of the positives had no symptoms was equally shocking.”
Professor Ioannidis’ findings are also consistent with the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford which found that the lethality of covid19 (IFR) is between 0.1% and 0.36% (in the range of a severe influenza). Even in people over 70 years of age with no serious preconditions, the mortality rate is expected to be less than 1%. Further in stark contrast to influenza (and counter to the hysteria in New Zealand about sending children back to school) child mortality is effectively zero.

Professor Ioannidis was publicly giving these warnings prior to New Zealand entering lock down and ever since then more and more data has emerged questioning the fundamental conjectures on which the government’s “Covid-19 strategy” is based. For an excellent collection of hundreds of articles on this topic see here.

The reason Professor Ioannidis’ and other’s findings are so important is that this government’s justification for the most significant erosion of civil and political liberties in our country’s history and the evisceration of the economy increasingly appears to rest on false assumptions.

The key point is that no one, anywhere, in any position of authority, ever should take a decision of the magnitude Arden took without double and triple checking the facts on which they are relying. Ardern and Director of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, must have been aware of this research (a simple google search would have found it) and if they weren’t then they should have been. What we are witnessing is the single most damaging mistake in New Zealand’s history, costing tens of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of jobs and likely hundreds or thousands of preventable deaths due to the unintended consequences of the lock down including suicide, increased poverty and delayed medical treatment.

One argument in the government’s defence is “that things were moving fast, we had to make a decision.” This is fallacious on two fronts. First Covid-19 publicly emerged in early January. The government first ignored it, then played it down, then dithered while obvious steps it might have taken (if it had been genuinely concerned) such as closing the border were ignored. Ardern’s mantra then the government acted “hard and early” is spurious at best.

Second, there were dozens of individuals such as Professor Ioannidis and closer to home Professors Grant Schofield and Dr Simon Thornley who issued warnings about an over-reaction to Covid-19 but who were almost universally ignored by local media.

Third, as more and more data has emerged the government could, if it chose to, change course and recognise the terrible mistake it has made. It could remove the lock down, protect that portion of the population that is genuinely vulnerable (those over 70 with co-morbidities – remembering that every single person in New Zealand who has died thus far with Covid-19 is in this category) and allow the rest of the population to pick up the pieces, get on with their lives and generate the wealth required to protect our elderly. Ardern could even do this with relative political impunity as the rest of Parliament, including the feckless Simon Bridges, followed her lock step into the lock down.

My guess is Ardern won’t. She is captured by a clique of Wellington mandarins with no real world exposure and a cabinet of ideologues with virtually no business experience. Further from Ardern’s perspective politically this is actually going well: she has what every politician craves, sky high polls, a complete lock on the media and an (apparently) clear path to victory in November. To back out now would be to give all that up and to acknowledge the tissue thin basis on which her decisions were made. And, even if she wanted to, her cabinet colleagues who depend on her for their positions would never allow it. As Richard Prebble, former Labour Minister, correctly observed:

Governments rarely acknowledge mistakes. Governments spend millions of dollars, good money after bad, to avoid admitting a mistake. Governments rarely go broke and so can go on trading in insolvency to the point where ministers, if they were directors, would be facing imprisonment [paywalled at the NBR]
In this Ardern is not alone of course, she is no different from politicians around the world with some notable outliers in Iceland, Korea, and Sweden. But she is our Prime Minister and we deserve better especially given the unique six week advantage that New Zealand had on the rest of the world.

So what now? Expect continued selective reporting of the “facts” from the government to try to maintain the public’s unjustified fear of Covid19 while actively ignoring any evidence that the threat was never truly real to begin. 

However New Zealand, in uniquely pursuing its “elimination” (whatever that word now means) strategy will be left behind as the rest of the world gradually develops immunity to Covid-19. We will be locked in our South Pacific prison for months or years to come (for a full discussion of the problem of the elimination “strategy” see here). Our economy and with it the wealth, health and well being of all New Zealanders will suffer a dramatic decline. 

As French author Albert Camus wrote in his 1947 novel “The Plague” “the only means to fight the plague is honesty.” It is a national tragedy that we have so little of it from this government.

For those interested, the full one hour interview with Professor Ioannidis can be found here. In addition an article published 24 April 2020 examines the criticism that has been levelled at Professor Ioannidis and his refutation of it. It can be found here:

Likewise for NZ economist Ian Harrison (who has worked for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements and specialises in risk modelling) work demolishing the fundamental research on which the government relied for compelling the country into lock down read here: 

Alex Davis 

If you enjoyed this article please SHARE across on FaceBook, Twitter etc. These articles take a long time to research and your support in getting the message out there is greatly appreciated.

Both the NZ Herald and Stuff originally indicated they would publish my Covid-19 articles but then pulled the pin at the last moment, I suspect (with some evidence) under political pressure.

I will do endeavour to respond to comments but I also need time to work on the next article. I don't get paid for these articles and there is no advertising on this blog so it has to fit in around my job(!) If you want to contact me please direct message me @emperorsrobes 


  1. Here's an interesting read:

    Weird times.

  2. "She is captured by a clique of Wellington mandarins with no real world exposure and a cabinet of ideologues with virtually no business experience."

    This is a key point. It's a bubble of media, government, academics and associated trades. Not one of these people suffers under a lockdown, they live in nice houses and have incomes that are largely insulated from reality.
    They are the chattering classes with no experience of managing real world risks, also completely in the grip of group think.

    If :I was cynical, I would say this is a world taken over by the Golgafrinchan's of Douglas Adam's wonderful books.

    It also opens the door to the worst temptations of power, the desire for the 'smart' people to be controlling society. That will be the worst outcome here, the idea government can restart or redesign and economy.

  3. This is a very worthwhile watch. It's a briefing from a pair of doctors who have experienced things first hand in the US. NZ'ers might be a bit triggered by the fact they own they own a chain of hospitals, and their views do come from a perspective you do not get from an academic, but it adds a coal fact view that Covid-19 is not what the media are portraying it as.

    1. Hi David - yes I saw that video and tweeted it out. Very worthwhile. Thanks for all your support with these articles and the comments. If you want to reach me direct message on my twitter account.

    2. No problem. It's good to see a few people standing up to this hysteria.

      I recommend having a look at His cohort have some some great work sifting through the data.

  4. Another magnificent article Alex. Thank you for your effort. As is usually the case no one will be held accountable for the economic catastrophe inflicted on our country, resulting from the massive over-reaction to Covid by Jacinda, Grant, Ashley and their cheerleaders. Is the best we can hope for a Royal Commission of Enquiry years later, which will achieve bugger-all because by then Jacinda will be Secretary-General of the UN. I blame Winston Peters for all of this. Let’s not forget that it was Winston Peters who put these clowns in government simply out of spite for National. The oil and gas ban made my blood boil, but this Covid con has taken my fury to a whole new level. I fantasise about Winston, Jacinda, Grant and Ashley being prosecuted by the Police for Treason. That is if the Police weren’t too busy chasing those criminal surfers catching waves and causing a 90 year old rest home resident with terminal cancer to die with (not from) Covid. The facts speak to their credibility. Prof. Hendy says “80,000 NZers could die”. The Herald runs this headline. Jacinda panics and says we need to go hard, go early, go put a teddy bear in our window and most importantly be kind. Five weeks later the facts are we have 19 dead already-sick old people. Shit, she says, better double-down on this nonsense, my smile, teary eyes and emoting will keep the simpleton NZers drinking my Kool Aid for two working days longer.

    1. Thanks Steven - I agree with you. I have seen a lot of leaders in my time in New Zealand but regrettably Ardern is by far the least competent (and owing to her ideology) also by far the most dangerous. “There's a road to hell that is paved with good intentions but it's a long route. The quicker path is paved with the kind of ignorance that clever men who just don't want to know are best at.” Mark Lawrence. Please reshare the article are broadly as you can! Thank you!

  5. Claiming that time is proving John Ionnidis correct is not correct at all.

    And nor is it correct to claim that John Ioannidis is "the world’s leading authority on data and epidemiology". Because this is something that John Ioannidis most certainly is not.

    These are just dishonest and wishful thinking type statements made by someone obviously desperate to validate his own views and anti labour government type rantings.

    Here is an interesting article that not only covers John Ioannidis's work (referred to by Alex Davis) but also points out why most of John Ioannidis's colleagues (and indeed most of the worlds best epidemiologists) don't agree with him.


    To quote one of them (Alexander Rubinsteyn, a geneticist and computational biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill):

    "“My quick take is that something really odd is going on with Ioannidis,”

    "Ioannidis may simply be so attached to being the iconoclast that defies conventional wisdom that he’s unintentionally doing horrible science."

    “Pretty much no one with statistical acumen believes these studies.”

    It is rather ironic that I guy like John Ioannidis who has made a name for himself by little more than pointing out the flaws in other peoples published research could effectively make such a complete and utter fool of himself in front of the scientific world by trying to push a theory that he came up with based on the results of a very small sample of serology tests when those tests have been known right from the outset to be extremely unreliable and prone to give around 50% false positives.

    In doing so Ioannidis has also made a fool out of Alex Davis. Because Ioannidis would have known that these tests were not at all reliable IF he had actually had been the " world’s leading authority on epidemiology" that Alex Davis is trying to make him out to be. Ironically the inaccuracy of these type of tests are even mentioned in some of the other material that Alex Davis has falsely extrapolated some of his data from.

    So all we really see demonstrated from Alex Davis's article is just yet another example of how if you have an unhealthy political bent that seriously clouds your thinking, you will always be able to find (if you just look hard enough!) some "world leading expert" like John Ioannidis who you can use to endorse your own predetermined anti-government rantings. Particularly if it doesn't worry you at all that you may have to grossly exaggerate his credentials, and that the overwhelming majority of experts ( and even his own peers) don't agree with him.


    1. Quite an extraordinary way of approaching science there 'unknown'.

      Ioannidis primary point was the data was very poor and the principle action should be to get better data. This was followed by a second point in that the world was taking extreme, unprecedented action on poor data and with no scientific basis.

      To turn this is what you have written is quite something.

      As for the 'most of.....' there are plenty of examples of why 'most of....' leads to the worst events in human history. Show the science. Where does it support a lockdown? Country that have not locked down have not seen what has been claimed.

    2. "Ioannidis primary point was the data was very poor and the principle action should be to get better data. This was followed by a second point in that the world was taking extreme, unprecedented action on poor data and with no scientific basis."

      Whereas Alex Davis's primary points were to lie about John Ioannidis being "the world’s leading authority on data and epidemiology"...... and then to use both Ioannidis and his "very poor" data (your words) as some sort of proof that unprecedented actions already taken (lockdown in NZ) were clearly wrong.

      All I did was take the time to point out both the dishonesty and foolishness of that.

      How very interesting that you seem to want to pick points over with with me though, rather than with Alex.

    3. "Ioannidis and his "very poor" data (your words) as some sort of proof that unprecedented actions already taken (lockdown in NZ) were clearly wrong."

      I'm not talking about Ioannidis data, I'm talking about all the data we have on Covid. We know far more people have had it than the numbers reported and we know deaths of Covid are very likely less than those reported. This magnifies the appearance of risk, which is highly misleading.

      We also know the projections of death from computer models are wrong. The models have been proven to be wrong time and again and have no predictive utility. The us of this in that way is going against all the science.

      The onus of proof is on those who support the lockdown, we know how much hard is will do, so there must be some evidence it is both effective and proportionate.

      Where is this proof?

      "How very interesting that you seem to want to pick points over with with me though, rather than with Alex."

      Because I disagree strongly with a lot of your points. Sweden will very likely achieve herd immunity mid May. NZ will still be in lockdown with hundreds of thousands facing unemployment and tens of billions in debt.

      For what?

  7. I am not sure I agree with you unknown. I think I will take Professor Ioannidis findings (given his academic credentials - see below) over the word of an otherwise unknown academic who happens to be working on SARS and Covid vaccines (no conflict of interest there at all).

    Here are Professor Ioannidis' credentials:

    Academic Appointments
    Professor, Medicine - Stanford Prevention Research Center
    Professor, Health Research & Policy
    Professor (By courtesy), Statistics
    Professor (By courtesy), Biomedical Data Science
    Member, Bio-X
    Member, Cardiovascular Institute
    Member, Stanford Cancer Institute
    Affiliate, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
    Administrative Appointments
    Co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) (2013 - Present)
    Editor-in-chief, European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010 - Present)
    Member, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute (2010 - Present)
    Member, Stanford Cancer Center (2010 - Present)
    Affiliate, Stanford Center on Longevity (2012 - Present)
    All Administrative Appointments (13)
    Honors & Awards
    Elected member, National Academy of Medicine (2018-)
    Einstein fellow, Berlin Institute of Health, Einstein Stiftung and Stiftung Charite (2018)
    Epiphany Science Courage Award, Novim (inaugural award) (2018)
    Elected Councilor, Association of American Physicians (2017-2022)
    Elected member, Association of American Physicians (2009-)
    All Honors & Awards (34)
    Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations
    Chair, Scientific Advisory Board, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh (2015 - Present)
    Faculty Fellow, Stanford Center for Innovation on Global Health (2015 - Present)
    Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in Social Sciences (2014 - Present)
    Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Center for Open Science (2013 - Present)
    Member, Scientific Advisory Board, International Epidemiology Institute (2012 - Present)
    Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Reproducibility Initiative (2012 - Present)
    Senior Advisor for Knowledge Integration, NCI, NIH (2012 - 2016)
    Member, Methodology Committee, PCORI (2011 - 2013)
    Vice President, Board of Directors, Hellenic Center for Infectious Disease Control (2000 - 2001)
    Professional Education
    Fellowship, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Infectious Diseases (1996)
    Residency, New England Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Internal Medicine (1993)
    DSc, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece, Biopathology (1996)
    MD, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece, Medicine (1990)

  8. So basically Ioannidis is not that well qualified in the specific area of epidemiology then (despite your fraudulent claims of him being "the world’s leading authority on data and epidemiology") let let alone epidemiology specifically in relation to infectious disease and corona type viruses. Wow what a surprise.

    Now go and research some of the credentials and real world experience of those specifically trained experts and epidemiologists who don't agree with him. Michael Osterholm would be a good place to start.

    1. Unknown we will have to agree to disagree, I think his credentials speak for themselves. This is a bit of give away: "C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics."

  9. This is the WHO guide to controlling epidemics. It details all the various steps that can be taken. Not with inteest the 'quality of evidence' to the effectiveness for each control measure.

    1. I'll put one of the key ones here;

      Home quarantine of exposed
      individuals to reduce transmission is
      not recommended because there is
      no obvious rationale for this measure,
      and there would be considerable
      difficulties in implementing it.

      Quality of evidence: Very Low
      Not recommended

    2. The WHO also refuse to recognize Taiwan as an independent country,... has tweeted that there was no evidence of human to human covid19 transmission at a time that there clearly was,.... and have also errantly stated (and still do) that the main modes of spread of covid19 is only via contact, and large droplets that fall to the ground within 1 mtr.

      So yes, lets all use their data as infallible validity our own agendas shall we?

      Don't get me wrong I'm not so much condemning the WHO who generally get it right. But rather just the stupidity in your methodology of cherry picking whatever info you think suits your agenda.

      Having done that I am obviously also going to point out that that you have misconstrued and misrepresented the data that you have posted (which seems to be a common theme around here).

      The data you have posted is from the 2019 WHO global influenza program. And is specifically for dealing with influenza. It does not condemn our governments actions in relation to covid19 at all. It only seems that way because you have either deliberately or ignorantly posted it out of context. It is providing guidelines specifically for dealing with individuals exposed to influenza (for which there is a vaccine) under some circumstances.

      The WHO have much more recent publications dealing specifically with covid19, and ironically (for you David Moore and Alex Davis) they endorse and recommend where applicable the exact quarantine and social distancing interventions such as the likes NZ has put in place. (who's guidelines did you actually think NZ would be following?) Anyone is free to go and check this out for themselves. Most of their bulletins are quite comprehensive and available as pdf downloads. You can access most of the relevant ones from this page:

      And the most specific ones are the first two dated 19th and 7th of march, and and the last one dated 28th of march.

      So,..... now having established this, we need to ask the question: will Alex Davis and David Moore now apply the same rules they applied to Davids post when they thought David had found evidence that the WHO rejected our governments stance/actions, and validated their own?

      Will Alex now acknowledge that this is a sound validation of our governments stance, but a brutal repudiation of his own ?

      Or will everyone here just continue to dishonestly cherry pick their information in order to propagate misinformation? (which is also ironically also mentioned the WHO papers!)

    3. "The WHO also refuse to recognize Taiwan as an independent country,... has tweeted that there was no evidence of human to human covid19 transmission at a time that there clearly was,.... and have also errantly stated (and still do) that the main modes of spread of covid19 is only via contact, and large droplets that fall to the ground within 1 mtr."

      Yes. The WHO is politically controlled and corrupt.

      "Having done that I am obviously also going to point out that that you have misconstrued and misrepresented the data that you have posted (which seems to be a common theme around here)."

      Show where you have evidence of lockdowns having any effectiveness in control of Covid-19, or any other respiratory illness.

      "The WHO have much more recent publications dealing specifically with covid19, and ironically (for you David Moore and Alex Davis) they endorse and recommend where applicable the exact quarantine and social distancing interventions such as the likes NZ has put in place. (who's guidelines did you actually think NZ would be following?)"

      My question is the same. Where is the evidence of the effectiveness of a lockdown.

      "(who's guidelines did you actually think NZ would be following?"

      Great question. I'd very much like to see the work they did discussing all the massive costs and cost in lives lost of a lockdown. Who gave them that advice? I wonder what they thought of the ethical issues raised in the WHO document. Where is the record of that.

      "So,..... now having established this, we need to ask the question: will Alex Davis and David Moore now apply the same rules they applied to Davids post when they thought David had found evidence that the WHO rejected our governments stance/actions, and validated their own?"

      You have completely misunderstood the purpose of my post.

      "Quality of evidence: Very Low"

      Very Low. Show your scientific evidence that a lockdown achieves any useful outcome in control of Cvoid-19.

      There is also some very interesting and balance discussion on the ethics of these measures. Where is that in your world?

      You seem to like my name, I'm quite happy to stand up tell you exactly who I am and the experience I have. You are Unknown.

      "Or will everyone here just continue to dishonestly cherry pick their information in order to propagate misinformation? "

      This is exactly what has been done to lead NZ to a disastrous policy that will cost many lives. And here you are running interference for it.

    4. Unknown thanks for your comments regarding the WHO. I did some research and came to a few conclusions:
      1. The WHO's response to Covid19 has been negligent. To summarise dozens of briefings and research papers they have put out: they initially down played its significance then changed course when they realised Covid19 had well and truly spread beyond China.
      2. Pragmatically the WHO has one fundamental job: prevent pandemics, as these constitute one of the gravest threats to humanity's existence. On that KPI they failed.
      3. They have become hopelessly politicised: see for instance that they are opposing a ban on wet markets in China - a strong candidate for the origin of this and many other animal to human transmissions.
      4. BUT if after all that you really still want to do what the The WHO says then NZ should immediately lift lock down because we meet all 6 of the WHO's criteria for doing so:
      "1. Disease transmission is under control
      2. Health systems are able to "detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact"
      3. Hot spot risks are minimized in vulnerable places, such as nursing homes
      4. Schools, workplaces and other essential places have established preventive measures
      5. The risk of importing new cases "can be managed"
      6. Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to live under a new normal."

      So, if you genuinely support WHO you should support calling on this government to end the lock down.

    5. Here's some more commentary on the WHO:

      "In other news, after another round of gloom-and-doom comments from the WHO's Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus Adhanom, the WHO officially endorsed the approach taken by Sweden, the latest flip flop from an organization that has done more than its fair share to confuse people with guidance that's constantly changing.

      The WHO initially opposed, then embraced lockdowns, and now it's apparently back to opposing them again. Unlike other European states like Italy, Sweden implemented swift and early testing regimes to weed out infected patients. This allowed it to avoid lockdowns and border closures, relying instead on social distancing guidance. The country never closed its schools, and although mortality rates have been markedly higher than its neighbors, the virus never overwhelmed its hospital system. The Swedish government's approach is widely popular within Sweden.

      The director of the WHO's health emergencies program said the notion that Sweden hadn't done much to combat the virus is simply not true.

      Sweden has put in place a "very strong public health policy", said Dr. Mike Ryan. Unlike many other countries, Sweden chose to rely on its "relationship with its citizenry" and trust them to self-regulate. Its healthcare system has not been overwhelmed, he said, adding that its approach could be a "model" for other countries when lockdowns begin to relax. "There are lessons to be learnt by our colleagues in Sweden."

      Remember the last time the WHO praised a "model" approach to tackling the virus? It was praising China's strict lockdowns."

  10. This is interesting. The winds in the media are changing.

    “I’m pleased New Zealand did the experiment,” said Peter Collignon, a professor of microbiology at Australian National University in Canberra, referring to New Zealand’s strident lockdown. “I think it actually shows that when you compare it to Australia, you can achieve the same result but without the same economic and social hardship that a complete lockdown involves.”

    I wonder if NZ'ers really knew they were guinea pigs in an experiment? Did Jacinda's experts advise her there was no science behind this plan and there was no evidence for it? Did Jacinda inform the public about the risks of this?

  11. I'm really not going to waste further of my time here beyond this post. Because I think that at this point in time it has been demonstrated clearly enough to anyone looking in with intellectual integrity just what levels of dishonesty, hypocrisy, goal post changing, cherry-picking of info, wriggle-wording, ....and frankly self-induced delusion you guys are prepared to employ in order to try and assert you are correct regardless of what the facts might or might not say.

    It is actually rather funny that you demand me to provide you with proof that or governments lock-down measures were justified,.... when this whole blog has been created on the assertion it wasn't with absolutely no credible proof being provided to back that assertion up.

    So I don't have to provide you proof of anything. I am not the one complaining about our governments actions. Nor am I the one setting up dishonest blog pages, writing dishonest articles, lying about peoples credentials, exalting grossly flawed studies over more reputable data, dishonestly cherry-picking and misapplying data.
    And nor am I someone (unlike yourselves obviously) who is quite prepared to take unknown gambles with unknown quantities of peoples lives should I be wrong.

    And I am really glad that I am not like you two.

    1. "And nor am I someone (unlike yourselves obviously) who is quite prepared to take unknown gambles with unknown quantities of peoples lives should I be wrong."

      What you have done is taken a known gamble with a known destructive outcome in the hope that it will stop something unknown out of nothing more than belief.

      They key point being that the impact of the lockdown is understood and will be profoundly damaging to NZ'ers lives and health for a generation.

      The lockdown will impact every single NZ'er.
      It will make their lives poorer
      It will harm the health outcomes
      It will cost many lives

      Just one single metric, someone being made unemployed has their mortality increased by 63%.

      As I pointed out above, the onus is on the clinician to ensure a treatment does more good than harm. You claim to be one, yet your prescription is nothing more than quackery driven by a fear of the unknown.

      Any doctor who undertook such a treatment would be stripped of they licence.

    2. Unknown you may or may not read this although I hope you do.

      First, good luck going forward and best wishes for the health of you and yours.

      Second, I think if you go back though this thread of comments it's been people like myself and David who have been providing data and substance backing up our claims (there are dozens of citations in my article) and regrettably "Unknowns" that have been largely making accusations of bias or rejecting positions without providing material data or evidence.

      Third, this description "levels of dishonesty, hypocrisy, goal post changing, cherry-picking of info, wriggle-wording, ....and frankly self-induced delusion you guys are prepared to employ in order to try and assert you are correct regardless of what the facts might or might not say" sounds a lot like our government's current approach - for a good break down of exactly that in action you can read here: - a step by step refutation of the data modelling which the Ministry of Health relied on and which in turn Cabinet relied on enforce lock down.


      As expected it turns out that this Ioannidis study you have based most of the weight of your politically fueled rant on was not only highly flawed (which was pretty clear at the outset to any one with more than half a brain given the faulty tests used and the non random test group) but also was instigated in the first place by people who had agendas such as yours Alex (and David)

      I guess grossly flawed study's like this, and the subsequent blog rants such as yours elevating it over the majority of sound evidence as you have done is what happens when people are so bent by their own political bias and agendas they can't see the forest from the trees.

  12. Thanks for the article, the social cost to all this will not be good. When the level anouncements were made they had all the information and most of the population none, unless you had to been following overseas news and realised that as in Italy is was effecting the aged population. So when St Jancinta said on national TV that unless we did what she says "10s of thousands of people will die unless you do what I say." They had all the information and scared most of the public into submission. They did not anounce any science for that decision apart from Mr Hendry and his famous "modeling" program. Will he be held accountable for his projections.10s of thousands to 20 is a slight difference wouldn't one think.

    Something for Jancinta lovers.

    Corona Times
    St Jacinta, 10s of thousands of NZers will die if you don't do what I say. So off to their rabbit holes we all went then at 4 weeks we popped our heads out to see some light and were told to go back 4 another week or you will die.Then the liitle bunnies were told they were allowed to go to school, but the teachers said they will die! Then Simon the Bridge rose up with his staff and said "let my small business people go!
    And everyone said no we can't or we will die, even some Simon's friends said that.
    St Jancinta then said I will come to the rescue of my people, so she got Neve( short for new eve) to draw a picture of an Easter egg and everyone in the kingdom was happy. Except for some who lost their jobs and we're hungry and didn't have a home any more.
    I love all the way to the moon and back my little rabbits said St Jacinta, we love you too!

    1. Thanks for the support EOS - my next article (out tomorrow) focuses on this issue.

  13. More questions for St Jancinta,
    Out of the positive results how many showed symptoms?
    Out of the people with symptoms how many required doctors visits?
    Out of the people who went to the doctors required hospital treatment?
    We know that about 20 died WITH the virus .
    I estimated (guessed) about 15 people in hospital at any one time, out of a population of 5 million.

  14. Hello Alex and Readers of his Blog

    This is Voluntaryist Jack Carney in Auckland and my purpose here is to persuade you to join me as a potential “Free Friend”—a person who understands and accepts the historical evidence and logical reasoning for considering ALL governments (dictatorships to democracies) as unnecessary evils and THE most humanly destructive “Superstition” (Larken Rose) on earth today.

    A Voluntaryist first response is to delegitimate—declare null and void in terms of moral legitimacy--all governments beginning with the New Zealand government. The Voluntaryist/Anarchist scholar from the U.S., Robert Higgs, is for me the most persuasive (with copious references to back up his conclusions) presenter of the facts that show Government/The State is that “Matrix” we must non-violently extricate ourselves from by taking the “Red Pill” and waking up to its actual and inherent Terrorist Nature.

    I think Higg’s invented term: “Participatory Fascism” provides the best chaser to help you swallow the “Red Pill” and proclaim yourself a Voluntaryist:
    “When I use ‘participatory fascism’—for me a technical term in political economy, not an ideological or rhetorical cudgel—most people react to the “fascism” part and disregard the “participatory” part. Yet that part is critical to one’s understanding of how this system of rule proves so durable and resilient.
    In the modern world, many people demand a voice in how they are ruled. In reality, however, every actual system of rule in a large society is and must be an oligarchy. Neither democracy in the simple sense nor autocracy in the sense of strict dictatorship or monarchy is workable. But oligarchy, a system in which a relatively small group of cooperating rulers (though it may have a nominal head ostensibly in charge) and their key financial supporters applies the nuts and bolts of rule is workable, indeed, indispensable. So, whether by design or by piecemeal pushing and pulling, this is the form that all modern governments take.”

    If interested in becoming a Free Friend and practicing Responsible Freedom, you will agree to the following:
    1. No moral justification for EVER initiating physical force or threat of using it (which means no moral sanctioning of ANY government since all use first force to govern).
    2. Private property.
    3. Free trade.
    4. Contractual obligation

    I offer you the “Red Pills” below (Higgs and The Philosophy of Liberty) to PROVE to you the rational and moral truth of the Voluntaryist way of living without violence:
    The Philosophy of Liberty (HD with voiceover)

    “People might build a virtual ‘parallel universe’ [Free Friends] in which their economic and social life could proceed on the free side of a de facto barrier against state intrusion.” Robert Higgs, Taking a Stand: Reflections on Life, Liberty, and the Economy

  15. Thank you David Moore, for taking ‘unknown’ to task for doing the very thing that he was complaining about in the article. While he has provide nothing to substantiate his own point of view, not even his name.
    Sadly this whole tragic episode has only succeeded in eroding the middle class and giving the NZ government the excuse to try to pass draconian powers into law ... that resemble the USA’s Patriots Act.
    Hopefully sense will prevail before we are all mandated to have twice yearly vaccines and be electronically chipped by Bill Gates.
    Which I would not be surprised is the ultimate goal of creating such fear and terror in the general populace by trying to portray Covid 19 as going to be a pandemic of the 1918 proportions.
    I was never the conspiracy type , but I’m fast starting to become one.


Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Elimination ‘Strategy’ = a Bullet to the Stomach for NZ

$21 billion: we have lost all sense proportion with Covid-19 and it’s hurting us