A 2006 survey of disease mitigation strategies by several top epidemiologists called lockdown-style quarantines a throwback to antiquated disease theory & said it should be eliminated from serious consideration as a disease mitigation measure. (Also see here.)

The following is an excerpt from the related paper:

“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. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”2 Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.

The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. 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.”

While there are often times disagreements among experts, an important question is, why was the above consensus ignored, and why did the medical bureaucracy in the U.S., western, and other countries (along with the WHO) go instead with a highly destructive lockdown method, for managing the COVID-19 pandemic? We know the above consensus is correct, because Sweden has managed successfully to get through the pandemic without a lockdown, avoiding the significant damage that accompanies a society that engages in it: mass psychological harm to its citizens due to isolation; mass unemployment and poverty; significantly increased national debt; displacement of medical care in areas other than COVID-19; the suspension of civil liberties.

Given the extensive politicization of the coronavirus, I believe its management, under the heavy influencing of the U.S. medical bureaucracy, did what it was supposed to do: land a significant blow to the U.S. and world economies, as well as provide a pretext to suspend Americans’ civil liberties, and usher in tyrannical rule. The COVID-19 pandemic, along with civil unrest, seen primarily in Democrat districts, by Democrat operatives (Black Lives Matter, Antifa, etc.) correspond with the destabilization and crises phases of Soviet style subversion, the Left have been engaging in for decades. Given the Left’s pattern of hitting their targets relentlessly, with one calamity after another (also the Left’s mass releasing of criminals from jail, as well as their effort to usher in mass mail-in voting, which is open to widescale fraud) don’t be surprised if our society continues to sustain blows in the way of escalating civil unrest, along with other calamities, culminating in a collapse of our elections - due primarily to mass mail-in voting, which is inherently insecure, and for which the U.S. Post Office is ill prepared to handle. It is in the Left’s playbook to do this. The Left believe the greatest opportunity to seize power is in times of crisis. The Left are likely right now in the process of creating a mother of a crisis through a series of escalating events (we can all see with our own eyes) in order to seize permanent power, after the elections.