Shelter At Home – The Big Lie?

There is much evidence emerging that shelter-at-home and some of the other draconian measures employed during the Covid-19 pandemic do not work that it does not stop the spread of the pandemic and does not save lives. The purpose of this post to collect the evidence that shows whether “stay at home” works or not. This post will be updated as new information becomes available.

The US Government is spending trillions of dollars that we do not have and have to be borrowed in our name to pay for these lockdowns. If the measures taken were not effective and there is no science behind it, contrary to what we we told by Dr Fauci and many others, that really needs to be exposed and people have to be held accountable, so that the same mistakes are not made during the next pandemic or even in the second wave of this pandemic that may come next year. There were perverse political motivations from the beginning among some to support a lockdown. The politicians and big media will, of course, try to cover up any failure and try to make people believe that it was actually a big success.

It seems intuitive that, if people are required to stay home, that they will have less chance of being infected. But intuition is not always correct. Viruses evolve to spread. Hard evidence of effectiveness is necessary. People are not really being isolated at home in a “lockdown” at least not in western countries. They still get packages delivered at home that may be contaminated. They still go to stores, shops and gas stations. They are mainly just not going to work and not supporting the economy. Maybe what may work in the Chinese dictatorship will not work in a constitutional republic?

Governor Cuomo of New York recently expressed “shock” that a poll taken showed that the great majority of Covid-19 patients checking into hospitals over a three day period had been sheltering in place. See the video lower on this page.

A recent study by the Spanish government showed in it’s preliminary results that the infection rate of essential workers and non-essential workers, who have been staying at home, was statistically the same. The page from the report is also displayed below.

Sweden never went into a “lockdown”, yet their deaths per million rank is well within the range of other European countries that went into a lockdown at great cost to their economies.


Mark Muesser, featured in the video below, is an attorney for the Center for American Liberty. He is suing Gavin Newsom and the Government of California in order to protect the constitutional rights of California citizens. He found an review article by doctors and scientist that stated that there was no proof that stay at home and some other such strategies are effective. He is requesting information from state and local governments about the “science” that justified their lockdown decisions and not getting good responses. (Mark is indeed our favorite attorney, as he says in the video, fighting for truth and our constitutional rights in California.)

Gavin Newsom has no Science to Justify Shelter in Place

Below is the article that Mark Meusser mentions in in the video. It reviews mitigation strategies for pandemics and says that many of them have not been shown to be effective. I do not know, if things have changed since the article was published, but we should find out soon. If you do not want take the time to read the whole article, this excerpt sums it up.

Over the years, various combinations of these measures have been used under epidemic and pandemic circumstances in attempts to control the spread of influenza. However, there are few studies that shed light on the relative effectiveness of these measures. A historical review of communities in the U.S. during the 1918 influenza pandemic identified only two that escaped serious mortality and morbidity. Both communities had completely cut themselves off for months from the outside world. One was a remote town in the Colorado mountains, and the other was a naval training station on an island in San Francisco Bay.(1) Obviously, this is not a strategy of general utility. Other studies have suggested that, except in the most extreme applications, disease mitigation measures have not had a significant impact on altering the course of an influenza pandemic. (2,3)

A number of mitigation measures that are now being considered could have a serious impact on the ability of the health system to deliver adequate care and could have potentially adverse consequences for the provision of essential services. Many could result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems. Such negative consequences might be worth chancing if there were compelling evidence or reason to believe they would seriously diminish the consequences or spread of a pandemic. However, few analyses have been produced that weigh the hoped-for efficacy of such measures against the potential impacts of large-scale or long-term implementation of these measures.


In this video, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York expresses shock that a study shows that a very large majority of those being admitted to hospitals in New York for Covid-19 had been observing his stay-at-home order under lockdown and it obviously did not protect them. He blames the public for the result, but just maybe such a lockdown has just not been proven by real science to be practical or effective?


A government-sponsored study in Spain showed in a preliminary report that the rate of infections was statistically the same for essential workers, who go to work every day, and non-essential workers who were staying home. This is page 8 of the report, entitled “Primera oleada informe seroprevalencia covid-19 en España” (First version of the covid-19 seroprevalence report in Spain), which I first saw reported in this post in the Gateway Pundit.

The title of this page says “Prevalence of IgG antibodies for Sars-Cov2 according to the characteristics of the participants”. At the bottom in the red box are the percentages infected for non-essential (6.9%) and non-essential (5.3%) workers. The non-essential workers were under a stay-at-home order. Since the error limits of the two numbers overlap, this means that no statistically significant difference found in infection rates of the two categories.

There report says the data is preliminary, so we should see the final report later. For some reason, the was no mention of this surprising result in the text of the report. It is just listed in the data table, without comment. Probably, it is not discussed, because that is not a result that would be welcomed by the political leaders, who ordered the enormously expensive and disruptive lockdown in Spain.


Leaders of a number countries, including Sweden, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, decided not to do a lockdown in response to Covid-19. Sweden is the most notable and transparent of these no-lockdown countries. The fatalities have been somewhat high, but are still well within the range of other European countries that did do lockdowns. Developing immunity in the population may mean more fatalities early on, but less fatalities after herd immunity has been achieved.

About a third of US states also had no lockdown or had relatively mild rules for the lockdowns without disastrous results, so far.

This is an interview of the Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden’s no-lockdown policy. Tegnell, very humbly, says that the jury is still out on their decision to not lockdown.

Tegnell points out that is is more sustainable to treat them like adults and inform the people and let them make their own decisions about how to protect themselves. Adopting the methods of the Chinese dictatorship creates resentment and rebellion as we have seen in the US and elsewhere, which is not sustainable.

Click for more posts on Covid-19
Covid-19 Panic and Hysteria – Bitchute Playlist

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.