We were a few months into the COVID chaos – well past the two weeks or fifteen days or whatever the narrative had shifted to to flatten the curve. Masks were not just a mandate but a political statement, and social distancing dots had appeared on floors across the land—six feet, they said, which made no sense.
We went looking and uncovered a source on all things social distancing.
No one can prove it works or does not. There are no clinical trials. In fact, the basis for the theory comes from a 14-years old’s high school science project back in 2006. A computer model developed with the help of her dad, who has no medical training or experience.
Much like medical or cloth masks and quarantining healthy people, none of which had any basis in science, the Machine Media took up the call. Fearmongering pied pipers spread the message across the land, stealing the lives of children in their wake as schools stayed locked down and those that opened months later mandated masks and, yes …distancing.
Last week, one of the founding fathers of COVID-era medical fraud, Tony ‘Little Shoes’ Fauci, admitted under oath that “guidelines to keep six feet of separation — ostensibly to limit the spread of COVID-19 — “sort of just appeared” without scientific input.”
Did someone make it up? They did. It started with then-14-year-old Laura M. Glass, who has long since distanced herself from her “work.” But back then,
Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.
That experiment later became the basis for a paper by Laura’s dad, Robert, “a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology.” Robert was the lead author of Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (his daughters also get credit), and, again – he had zero medical training or public health experience, which invited a scathing refutation by some actual medical professionals.
There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. … It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration…
One of the authors of that refutation was D.A. Henderson, who is credited with eradicating smallpox, so when the time came to ask whether lockdowns and distancing were sound, the “experts” chose the paper by the systems analyst and his teenage daughter and not the world of a real scientist with practical global experience.
Three years later, Fauci forgets the backstory and goes with, yeah, we don’t know, and no one checked. So, drunken-brainstorming at the CDC or NIH. That would explain a lot about how the situation was mishandled and one of the legitimate digs on the Trump presidency. He let Fauci run the show for too long, and while he openly commented on things with which he disagreed – death percentages were too high, defending the efficacy of HCQ and Ivermectin, it wasn’t enough to protect us from Fauci and his microphone-addicted, attention whores whose guidance on more than just distancing just appeared and – in some cases – contradicted existing scientific input.
“It is clear that dissenting opinions were often not considered or suppressed completely. Should a future pandemic arise, America’s response must be guided by scientific facts and conclusive data.”
That sounds like a mea culpa, but he is also reported to have said: “that the policies and mandates he promoted may, unfortunately, increase vaccine hesitancy for years to come.”
I’m guessing Facui still has a vested financial interest in vaccine uptake, so that statement, to my mind, is less about public health and more about Fauci’s financial legacy.
