by Steve Rees, Ret. RN, Harpist
After 3 years of turmoil and chaos, we are able to analyze the lessons learned from this whole pandemic experience. Much more information is available today than what we had at the beginning of this experience. Many peer reviewed studies are being published that demonstrate the truth of suspicions and beliefs that many of us had from the very beginning.
One of the first suspicions shared by many of the people that I was talking with at the time was that the pandemic was not the result of a natural
The second suspicion was in regard to the use of masks as a counter measure to the spread of the infection. Although many studies were already available that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the masks, especially the cheap surgical masks and cloth masks, the health officials proceeded to mandate their use as a universal application. Because fear was so propagated among the masses, these masks became a source of intimidation and virtue signaling that placed even greater barriers between those who wisely chose not to wear masks and those who blindly followed
The belief that these masks would somehow serve to slow down the spread of the pandemic was further thwarted by the fact that few people actually fitted the masks properly or changed them at acceptable intervals or discarded them appropriately. Now, three years later, further studies recently published have verified that the masks did nothing to change the course of the pandemic.
I hesitate to use the word
Another mistake that occurred early on was to accept the computer modeling by Dr. Ferguson et. al. from the UK that grossly overestimated the rate of transmission and death. Later as the pandemic unfolded, it became clear that their estimates were grossly out of touch with the reality of the disease.
The third suspicion that I shared with my cohorts was that the PCR testing being used to verify infection rates was grossly over sensitized by ramping the cycles way past the cycles recommended by the developer of the test.
The developer further did not recommend this test for diagnostic purposes for the CV-19. Yet, all that was disregarded, and a false narrative was developed over tracking positive test results rather than following people who actually manifested symptoms of the viral infection. It actually became a