Last week, I reported on a federal government research study and article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
This study and the paper produced by the study were both approved and funded by the United States government. The study determined that Covid-19:
“The case fatality rate is considerably less than 1%. This was confirmed by the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States, stating that “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza”, with a death rate of approximately 0.1%. “
This same study determined that the effectiveness of wearing a mask to avoid contracting the Covid-19 virus is very low. In fact close to zero if you don’t wear an N-95 mask that you change often.
This week a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors Martin Z. Bazant, professor of chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John WM Bush, professor of applied mathematics, found the following about social distancing:
“The distance doesn’t help you much and it also gives you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in this space runs roughly the same risk, in fact ”
CNBC reported that these MIT professors “have developed a method for calculating the risk of exposure to Covid-19 in an indoor environment that takes into account various problems that may affect transmission, including time spent indoors, filtration and air circulation, vaccination, strain variants, use of a mask, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, talking or singing ”.
One by one, we find out that what we were told to do to mitigate the spread of the virus was not true. I understand this is the nature of science, but we also know that the real scientist, as opposed to the politically motivated and agenda scientist, for 8 months or more has been telling us these same findings.
The biggest problem was that political leaders were destroying our economy, our businesses, our jobs, our education, people’s lives, deprived children of their milestones and rights of way in their lives, and borrowed over $ 5 trillion. by adopting decrees and very consequent decrees on these errors. scientific hypotheses.
Professor Martin Bazant said:
“We argue that the 6 foot rule really doesn’t have much benefit, especially when people wear masks… It really doesn’t have any physical basis because the air a person breathes when they wear a mask tends to move up and down elsewhere. in the room, you are therefore more exposed to the medium background than to a distant person. “
As for my take on the destruction of our economy, businesses, jobs, education, people’s lives, have deprived children of their milestones and rights of way in their lives and have borrowed over 5 trillion dollars, Professor Bazant said:
“What our analysis continues to show is that a lot of spaces that have been closed don’t actually need to be. Often the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the time people spend together is such that these spaces can be operated safely even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in these spaces is not. is really not that good … I think if you run the numbers even now for many types of spaces, you will find that there is no need for occupancy restrictions. “
Professor Bazant went on to say that we don’t have to spend large sums of taxpayer borrowed money on new filtration systems, just open a window or install new fans to keep the air going. air moving and that would be just as effective.
It gets even worse for the reputation of the CDC, NIH, WHO and Fauci when Professor Bazant said:
“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or the WHO never really provided a rationale, they just said this is what you need to do and the only rationale that I know of, is based on studies on coughs and sneezes, where they look at the bigger particles that can settle on the ground and even then it’s very rough, you can certainly have a longer or shorter range, big droplets “
Due to their findings above, they concluded:
“The distance doesn’t help you much and it also gives you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in this space runs roughly the same risk, in fact, “
How many times have you heard smart people ask for “rationale” for “orders” that came from the CDC, WHO, Governors and Presidents?
Regarding the mask, they found that “even with masks, such as with smoking, those in the vicinity are strongly affected by the secondhand smoke which spreads in the closed area and persists”.
Professor Bazant concluded with the following statement that we should all be angry with our “leaders” and our TV scientist when he said:
“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not only fear-mongering, but in fact analysis-based.”
Most of our civil liberties have been taken away from us, we have been and still are ordered to wear masks and keep away from people on the basis of what? At first I can understand the reckless decision making, but only a few months after the onset of this virus, many prominent doctors and scientists were questioning executive orders and the “science” behind them. They were providing their own evidence behind what they said while the government scientist provided none.
Are we going to allow this to happen to us again without further repression? We will see.
Should those politicians who have imposed their control on our lives when science tells them it is not necessary? I certainly hope so when they are re-elected.
Live with Renk airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts call (269) 441-9595