by Kit Knightly via

Light up the lone candle on the saddest birthday cake in the world! The most destructive public policy of the century is growing up and doesn’t look like slowing down.

And so we come to March 23rd, and lockdown’s first birthday. Or, as we call it here, the longest two weeks in history.

1 year. 12 calendar months. 365 increasingly gruelling days.

It’s a long time since “2 weeks to flatten the curve”, became an obvious lie. Sometime in July it turned into a sick joke. The curve was flattened, the NHS protected and the clapping was hearty and meaningful.

…and none of it made any difference.

This was not a sacrifice for the “greater good”. It was not a hard decision with arguments on both sides. It was not a risk-benefit scenario. The “risks” were in fact certainties, and the “benefits” entirely fictional.

Because Lockdowns don’t work. It’s really important to remember that.

Even if you subscribe to the belief that “Sars-Cov-2” is a unique discrete entity (which is far from proven), or that it is incredibly dangerous (which is demonstrably untrue), the lockdown has not worked to, in any way, limit this supposed threat.

Lockdowns. Don’t. Work.

They don’t make any difference, the curves don’t flatten and the R0 number doesn’t drop and the lives aren’t saved (quite the opposite, as we’ve all seen).

Just look at the graphs.

This one, comparing “Covid deaths” in the UK (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown):

Or this one, comparing “Covid deaths” in California (lockdown) and Florida (no lockdown):

From Belarus to Sweden to Florida to Nicaragua to Tanzania, the evidence is clear. “Covid”, whatever that means in real terms, is not impacted by lockdowns.

Putting the entire population under house arrest doesn’t benefit public health. In fact, it’s (rather predictably) incredibly counter-productive.

The damage done by shuttering businesses, limiting access to healthcare, postponing treatments and diagnoses, postponed surgeries, increasing depression, soaring unemployment and mass poverty has been discussed to death. The scale of the impact cannot be overstated.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, said this of lockdowns back in October:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…]just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry…look what’s happening to small-holding farmers[…]it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

VIDEO: @15:30 into the interview

A terrible, global catastrophe. A doubling of childhood malnutrition.

The “pandemic” didn’t do that, lockdowns did that. They were never going to achieve their stated aims. And what’s more, they were never intended to achieve those aims.

Too often soft language in the media talks about “misjudgments” or “mistakes” or “incompetence”. Supposed critics claim the government “panicked” or “over-reacted”. That is nonsense. The easiest, cheesiest excuse that has ever existed.

“Whoops”, they say, with an emphatic shrug and shit-eating grin “I guess we done messed up!”. Unflattering, but better than the truth.

Because the truth is that the government isn’t mistaken or scared or stupid…they are malign. And dishonest. And cruel.

All the suffering of lockdown was entirely predictable and deliberately imposed. For reasons that have nothing to do with helping people and everything to do controlling them.

It’s been more than apparent for most of the last fifty-two weeks that the agenda of lockdown was not public health, but laying the groundwork for the “new normal” and “the great reset”.

A series of programmes designed to completely undercut civil liberties all across the world, reversing decades (if not centuries) of social progress. A re-feudalisation of society, with the 99% cheerfully taking up their peasant smocks “to protect the vulnerable”, whilst the elite proselytise about the worth of rules they happily admit do not apply to them.

And we’ve all had lives ruined and a year of precious time wasted. For nothing. You’ve been locked up for two weeks that lasted 365 days. For nothing.

…or rather, for everything. Because that’s what they are trying to take from us. Everything. And the only way to stop them is not to let them. To simply refuse consent.

Let’s not let lockdown get a second birthday.

VIDEO: Florida Wins the Lockdown Science War – Hands Down
from Ivor Cummings –

ALSO More below from Ivor Cummings:
A Compilation of Scientific Analyses and Papers on Lockdown Effectiveness

One Year To Flatten Life As We Knew It
Authored by Rob Slane via

It is a year since we embarked on an untried, untested, unscientific, draconian and frankly mad medical, social, economic and psychological experiment on millions of people. On the day we were thrust into this folly I wrote, “So that seems to be that. The end of Britain as we knew it.” All that has taken place since has, I believe, confirmed that, and my only surprise is that millions of people still cling to the bizarre idea that Lockdowns were based on science, that they were necessary, that they have been effective, and that we have a benevolent Government whose aim has been to keep us all safe. None of these things are true.

A Brief Recap of What Has Taken Place

You will search in vain for pre-2020 medical and scientific literature advocating the mass quarantining of healthy people as an appropriate response to a pandemic. In fact, after a panicked Mexican Government flirted with the idea for five whole days during the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak (ending it once it was realised how devastating it would be), the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) at the time, Dr Margaret Chan, explicitly warned against such destructive measures being used:

“In this regard, let me make a strong plea to countries to refrain from introducing measures that are economically and socially disruptive, yet have no scientific justification and bring no clear public health benefit.”

So this disruptive, unscientific measure, with no clear public health benefit was quietly buried and forgotten about. Until, that it is, it was implemented in January 2020, in the Chinese province of Hubei, on the orders of Xi Jinping, leader of one of the most totalitarian regimes on the planet, as the lawyer Michael Sanger details in great depth here.

One might have expected the WHO to take the same line as Dr. Chan in 2009, yet by February it had inexplicably changed its pandemic response guidance, on the flimsiest and most unreliable evidence, bringing it into line with the Wuhan decree.

One might then have expected Western countries to reject this tyrannical approach, but shockingly they did not. In Britain, the perfectly sensible five whole days during the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak the Government had had in place since 2011, which stressed the absolute importance of ensuring minimal disruption to society, even during a virus outbreak that might take 315,000 lives in a 15 week period, was binned. Why? That is the single most important question to which we need answers, but I think that Professor Neil Ferguson gave us a big clue in his interview with The Times in December:

“They [the Chinese] claimed to have flattened the curve. I was skeptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy. But it’s a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realized we could.”

His claim of flattening the curve is a red-herring. His comment that they realised they could get away with implementing the tactics of a despotic regime is not.

Having been failed by the WHO and the Government, surely the British people would not fall for something so self-evidently absurd as prohibiting millions of perfectly healthy people from coming into contact with other healthy people? Surely the spirit that had made this country one of the freest nations on earth would kick in?

Sadly, and bafflingly, no. The British people, through a combination of being bombarded with fear, hysteria and outright lies on an unprecedented scale, meekly submitted to these despotic decrees, believing them to be something to do with being kept safe.

The Lie of Asymptomatic Transmission and the Myth of Half a Million Deaths

The biggest lie by far is that of asymptomatic transmission. Indeed, it may one day become known as the biggest lie, told to the largest number of people, in the shortest space of time. The claim was based chiefly on an incident in Germany, where a Chinese lady, who was thought to have been asymptomatic, was said to have spread the illness. However, it subsequently turned out that she did in fact have symptoms, but had suppressed them with medication. Yet that was scarcely reported on, and by that time the myth that this was some kind of new, mystical disease that could be spread by people with no symptoms had been born, and with it the basis for the Lockdowns, masks, and the myriad of other bizarre, dystopian restrictions placed upon us. Later in the year, a huge study of 10 million people in Wuhan showed zero cases of asymptomatic spread, but as you can probably guess this was entirely ignored by Governments and media around the world.

What of Professor Ferguson’s claim of 510,000 deaths? This remains the basis for the claim of Lockdown supporters that there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths had we not locked down. Apart from the fact that the UK is currently fifth on the worldwide deaths per million table having had the third most stringent Lockdown on planet earth, according to the University of Oxford, and that countries who did not lock down have fared no worse, is there anything else that we can point to, to show the fallacy of Professor Ferguson’s doomsday prophecy?

Why yes there is, and it is in fact contained within Professor Ferguson’s report itself. He arrived at his figure of 510,000 dead for a “no-restrictions” scenario by estimating that 81% of the population would become infected, and by assuming an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid-19 at 0.9%. However, in October, arguably the world’s foremost epidemiologist, John Ioannidis, of Stanford University, California, published a definitive study into the IFR of Covid-19. He calculated that the median rate was 0.23%, not 0.9%, as Ferguson had assumed, and his work was accepted and approved by the WHO.

This is very important: If Ferguson had used the IFR number of 0.23%, rather than 0.9%, guess what number of deaths he would have arrived at? The answer is around 127,000. Which is mighty interesting, since the total number of “official” deaths from Covid-19, at the time of writing, is 126,172. In other words, if Ferguson had used the correct IFR, the number of deaths he would have predicted in a scenario with no Lockdown would have been the same number of official deaths that we’ve actually had with the 3rd most stringent Lockdown on earth. Of course, I’m well aware that those 126,000 or so deaths were not all from Covid-19, but Lockdown supporters claim they were and so it’s for them to explain how this number is currently the same as Ferguson’s study would have predicted for a non-Lockdown situation, had he used the correct IFR.

That Lockdowns have not saved lives ought to be obvious. The virus was known since early March 2020 to overwhelmingly kill the elderly with comorbidities, and so resources could and should have been targeted to protect such people. Yet the scattergun approach that was taken of quarantining everyone is not — by definition — a targeted approach. And so the irony is that with all the absurd calls for healthy people to change their whole way of life to protect the vulnerable, what actually happened is the healthy had their lives utterly overturned, and the vulnerable were left to die.

The Destructive Power of Lockdowns

So much for the futility of Lockdowns to do good, what about their destructive power? This cannot be overstated. They are destroying lives. They are destroying livelihoods. They are destroying jobs. They are destroying businesses. They are destroying education. They are destroying churches. They are destroying trust. They are destroying mental health. They are destroying marriages. They are destroying relationships. They are destroying communities. They are destroying the idea that the police serve the people. They are destroying the rule of law. They are destroying free Britain.

Time and space will not suffice to tell of the destruction to the delicate balances of life in the medical sphere (especially weakened immune systems), the social sphere, the psychological sphere and the economic sphere, or the slide to a Transhumanist future brought about by the incessant calls for humans to stay away from other humans, and the bizarre ritual of covering the human face — the most immediate and important physical manifestation of the Imago Dei — with useless bits of cloth.

To those who have acquiesced in this, I would just ask this: Do you still not see what you have done? Do you still not see what it is you have supported?

The Britain that existed prior to March 2020, or which many of us thought existed, is gone. The Britain, in which we took freedom for granted, is gone. We have entered a very different future, and what is more, the vast majority of people seem to have welcomed it. Worse than this, we are being ushered into a Transhumanist Technocracy, where we are not seen as human, made in the image of God, but merely as potential virus carriers, digital ID numbers, drones fit to be tracked and traced, fit to be watched and ordered about by the dystopian technocrats who are building their Medical Despotism around us, but not considered worthy to live quiet and peaceful lives, going about our lawful business, living life without interfering overlords meddling in every aspect of it.

Why has this happened?

For the first few months I hedged my bets between the idea that the continuance of these measures was down to politicians trying to cover up for a monumental blunder, or that it was part of something far more nefarious. And whilst I am still unclear on the origins, for me the “covering up for a big mistake” possibility became untenable in October, with the release of The Great Barrington Declaration. This was a scientifically sound, medically robust, intellectually credible way out of the crisis that had been created. It was an open door for the British Government, along with others around the world, to walk through and save face. But what actually happened is they either ignored it or, in the case of Comrade Hancock, actively ridiculed it.

I think it obvious by now that there is something far more nefarious going on. But how to explain it? Some imagine that this must require some Dr Evil character, pulling the strings and making his puppets all dance to the same tune. I don’t believe this to be so. Anyone who has even the most cursory knowledge of politics over the past two decades must have noticed that almost all the people who rise to the top have broadly the same ideology. They think the same things. They mouth the same platitudes. They walk the same walk. And if you don’t think, speak or walk like them, why you’ll never be invited to the party. It is fairly obvious that many of these people have seen Covid-19 as an opportunity to increase their power, to control people, and to remake society in their own hideous image.

But that’s not all. I have seen endless disquieting comments – echoing my own thoughts – from both Christians and non-Christians, that the inexplicably bizarre reaction to what happened was as if millions of people have been put under some kind of spell. On this, it would be well to remember that there are things that go on which are well beyond our ability to explain by purely human reason and human actions:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:1).

Looking to the Future

Having been lulled and propagandised into the acceptance of measures that are not only futile in and of themselves, but which have destroyed the idea of what we might call normal life, millions have now been lulled into the idea that rushed, untried, untested “vaccines”, which are not due to finish their clinical trials until 2023 (see links to PfizerAstraZeneca and Moderna trials), are some sort of salvation and way back to normal. But as the news in recent days has shown, they are in for a big disappointment. Your overlords do not want to let you return to normal. They have the bit between their teeth, and I don’t think they are about to let this opportunity go.

What we are seeing is far bigger, far more comprehensive, far more awful than most of us can comprehend. As Naomi Wolf summed up in a fantastic commentary on the situation recently:

“But this time we do not just face a war on freedom. This time we face a war on human beings, and on all that makes us human.”

Indeed. From Lockdowns to social distancing to masks, humanity and what it means to be human is under attack. There is but one peaceful way out of this Transhumanist Technocratic future: individuals, churches and nations need to repent before God, and having repented they need to plead with Him for deliverance from this judgement, and that he will re-establish truth, reality, and what it actually means to be human, in a world that has forgotten these things. The hour is late. The need really is urgent.

“It’s Time For The Truth” – One Year After Lockdowns Began

Authored by Edward Peter Stringham via The American Institute for Economic Research

One year ago, between March 13 and 16, 2020, began what most of us would agree were the most difficult days of our lives. We thought our rights and liberties were more or less secure or could only be hobbled on the margin. We took certain things for granted, such as that our governments would not – and could not – order us to stay home, close most businesses and schools, shut down travel, padlock churches and concert halls, cancel events, much less lock down society in the name of virus control.

All that changed with a federal document issued March 13, 2020, and declassified three months later. It was the lockdown guidelines. Over the following days, governors panicked. People panicked. Bureaucrats were unleashed. All the powers of the state at all levels of society were deployed not on the virus but on the people, which is all that governments can really control. The lockdowns were nearly universal, implemented around the world but for a few holdouts, one of which was in the US (South Dakota).

A year later, most states are opening up while those still clinging to lockdowns can no longer control people. Regardless of warnings from the top that going back to normal life is too dangerous, most people have decided to be done with the whole dreadful episode.

All year we’ve asked ourselves the question: why did this happen? Pathogens are part of life now and always have been. For the better part of a century, social and economic outcomes from new viruses were ever less disruptive. Public health had a settled consensus that disease is something to mitigate through doctor-patient relationships. Taking away people’s rights was out of the question. The last time that was tried in very limited ways in 1918 demonstrated that coercion only distracts, divides, and delays. This is why lockdowns were not attempted for another hundred years. Wisely so.

In the severe pandemic of 1957-58, officials explicitly said:

“[T]here is no practical advantage in the closing of schools or the curtailment of public gatherings as it relates to the spread of this disease.’’

It was the same in 1968-69, 2006, 2009, and 2012-13. 

Then came 2020 and SARS-CoV-2. The 24-hour news cycle and social media kicked in. Shocking images from China – people dropping dead in streets, police dragging people out of their homes or otherwise sealing whole apartment units – were blasted onto cellphones the world over. Then a part of Italy seemed to erupt. To many, it felt like a plague, and a primitive disease panic took over political culture.

We know (China’s Role in Global Lockdowns: The Smoking Gun) now that the US had sent a delegation to Beijing in mid-February 2020 to get lessons in how properly to control a pandemic, even though the information coming from the Chinese Communist Party has been unreliable at best; there simply is no evidence that their lockdowns in Wuhan were actually responsible for beating back the virus. Obviously so. No disease in history has been suppressed by reliance on brute force over intelligent mitigation.

Regardless, pandemic central planning, even if you believe in it, relies on knowing the severity of a particular disease before the evidence is in. That is simply not possible. Viruses don’t come with severity and prevalence labels. What’s more, there is no escape from the circumstances of time and place. SARS-CoV-2 hit different countries in different ways based on demographics and the population’s immunity profile. Africa, Asia, and America all had very different experiences with the virus regardless of policy…..

Let’s imagine an alternative scenario in which lockdowns actually did work on one pathogen. Would they be worth it? Public health, as Martin Kulldorff continues to explain, must consider not just one ailment but the whole well-being of the community, not just in the short run but the long run. Even if Covid-19 was controlled via coercion, was it worth it to wreck so many businesses, force missed cancer screenings, keep kids out of school for a year, shatter so many communities that depend on houses of worship, lock people in their homes, and hobble the ability to travel?

These are egregious actions, and contrary to all the policy practices we associate with free societies that respect human rights. So in one sense, the argument about whether lockdowns “work” – they do not – is beside the point. For the sake of social and economic functioning as well as human rights, disease mitigation must not be managed by political actors but rather medical professions, as AIER has been saying for a full year. 

When the Great Barrington Declaration, hosted by AIER, appeared in October, millions found the statement to be a breath of fresh intellectual air. Finally some good sense! Others were scandalized that some were willing to dissent from the lockdown orthodoxy. In the end, a full year after this terrible experiment began, it is almost time to declare a narrow victory: the Declaration was right and the lockdowners were wrong. The lockdowners are in retreat just as is the virus, and exactly the way that the authors said it would, through the acquisition of population immunity via natural exposure and vaccines.

Even if this battle is won, there are so many ahead of us. We have a broken federal budget, a broken monetary system, and a broken and demoralized population that never imagined people could be so ill-treated by their own political class. The trauma of 2020 will be felt decades hence. The healing will only come from honesty and truth, and a thorough rejection of the folly, duplicity, and deception that has defined our era.

It’s time for the truth. 


Ivor Cummings –

Scientific Analyses and Papers on Lockdown Effectiveness

Here collated are the papers of shame – the lockdown ideology is destroying our societal health, selling the lie of saving lives. Lockdowns cost net suffering and lives – by a huge margin. Here we gather together the evidence.


  1.  STANFORD – Effects of NPI on Covid-19 – A Tale of Three Models
  2. Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy – an internet-based ecological study
  4. Was Lockdown in Germany Necessary? – Homburg
  5. KOCH Institute Germany Analysis
  7. NATURE Submission Flaxman et al Response
  9. NIH Paper
  14. EPIDEMIOLOGY Too Little of a Good Thing Paper
  15. Smart thinking: lockdown and Covid-19 Implications-for-Public-Policy
  16. SCOTLAND Life Expectancy Paper
  25. Government Mandated Lockdowns do NOT Reduce Mortality – New Zealand Wrong
  26. Dec 30th Longitudinal variability in mortality predicts Covid-19 deaths
  27. Lockdown Effects on Sars-CoV-2 Transmission – The evidence from Northern Jutland
  28. Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19
  29. COVID-19 Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink
  30. STANFORD Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 – A Tale of Three Models
  31. Flaxman Rebuttal – The effect of interventions on COVID-19
  32. COVID-19 Lockdown Policies – An Interdisciplinary Review
  33. Do Lockdowns Make a Difference in a Pandemic?
  34. Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost


Note: also go to


Oct 2019 WHO Pandemic Guidelines – no Lockdown Allowed:

WHO Oct 2019 Pandemic Guidelines

Excellent Paper on Dr. Hope Simpson’s “The Transmission of Influenza” masterclass book:

Immunity 101:  Great Summary of Population Immunity Reality

Jan 16th Riposte to Quillete Snowdon Junk-Journalism:  Quillette Snowdon Junk-Journalism Riposte

A Letter from Locked-Down Ireland:  The Conversation Nobody is Prepared to Have




Please share this, pass it along,
comment and start a conversation.




One thought on “Lockdown 1 yr On – doesn’t work, it never worked & it wasn’t supposed to work”

Leave a Reply