Covid-19: the nonsense of the five foot distance rule

The measures taken by the Dutch government on the advice of the RIVM to stop the coronavirus outbreak are constantly lagging behind scientific facts and doing more harm than good. Even after the so-called “intelligent lock down” has been relaxed, little thorough thought appears to be given to really effective measures. An excellent example is the one and a half meter measure.

Draconian measures and fines
You as a reader will not have missed it. Everywhere shops and other public spaces are adorned with warning signs and cordoned off boxes to keep visitors five feet away. The social costs are enormous. Stores can receive far fewer customers than usual. For contact professions it was impossible to receive clients. This requirement has now been relaxed for hairdressers, among others, but otherwise the 1.5 meter journey is strictly enforced: individuals are fined up to 390 euros, companies in theory up to tens of thousands of euros. For example, an 'illegal' hairdresser at home was fined for more than three thousand euros, plus of course the customer. Lawyers also have serious doubts about the legality of these measures. Any "gathering" of more than two people who do not belong to the same household is grounds for handing out fines.

Source: Dutch National Government

Aren't these measures going too far?
The measures as they are now being announced are seriously affecting civil liberties and also unconstitutional. There is the freedom of association (the high fines for ignoring the ban on gathering together, let alone for house parties are very contrary to this). In fact, legally speaking, these measures can only be taken if a state of emergency is declared, as in France. Much of Europe, including the Netherlands and Belgium, turned into a de facto police state. Clicking neighbors and an increasingly lively underground resistance movement complete the picture.

Do these measures make sense?
The question is whether these measures make sense. The Dutch RIVM, which slavishly follows the WHO, was, and is constantly lagging behind the facts. For example, the RIVM claimed at high and low that symptom-free patients could not spread the virus, while it was known from the literature at the end of February that there were indeed massive outbreaks by symptom-free infected people. Mouth masks were 'ineffective' (here too, countries with a masking obligation have much less infections, especially because masks keep the coughing fit under their breath). Furthermore, the death rate was hugely overestimated. The Diamond Princess, a cruise ship with mostly elderly people, had more than seven hundred infections but only thirteen dead. This was also known at the end of February.

Travels to China, Iran and Italy, then the main outbreaks, were not stopped because this was politically sensitive and the WHO refused to do so. Carnival could continue, which is why a huge outbreak took place, especially in Brabant. Testing was extremely limited because, according to the RIVM, there was insufficient test material. This was incorrect: laboratories where manual testing was done, such as in the north of the Netherlands did not know these problems.

Mouth masks are now compulsory within public transport, under penalty of heavy fines. Effective medical face masks, such as N95 and better, are “not recommended”.

Research also shows that cough droplets reach up to eight meters. So the 1.5 meter distance rule makes little sense, as long as the virus particles from a coughing fit can spread unimpeded. The earlier SARS virus and other coronaviruses are already known to be extremely resistant to UV radiation and to die outside quite quickly. It is therefore senseless to strictly adhere to the 1.5 meter rule outside.

Also the draconian censorship on Facebook, YouTube and other channels on so-called misinformation is a very serious violation of our civil liberties. Partly, since most misinformation appears to come from WHO and RIVM themselves and citizens are therefore exposed to incorrect information. This greatly exacerbated the Covid-19 outbreak.

Much of the damage has already been done. In multiple nursing homes with many frail elderly is one true slaughter caused, with in some cases more than half of the residents dead. This is because the RIVM did not consider it necessary to test elderly carers for the virus. The unscrupulousness and incompetence that underlies this is truly mind-boggling and cannot be without consequences.

Which measures do make sense?
In fact, the best measures are the opposite of what the RIVM recommends. Outdoors is a safer place than indoors, because the UV radiation from the sun at the highest point inactivates virus particles quite quickly. Face masks should be mandatory, as they prevent coughing fits from spreading the virus. UV-C lamps deactivate the virus. UV-C lamps with a wavelength of 222 nm do not penetrate the dead epidermis, but do destroy the RNA of the virus. These lamps must be mass-produced or imported and then made mandatory in public spaces. The one and a half meter rule is nonsense and is best done away with immediately. The number of contacts should only be limited for frail elderly and chronically ill. Parties and gatherings should only be allowed outdoors, during the day, in sunny weather, with masks being mandatory. Almost all superspreader events, as in Korea, took place in enclosed spaces.
Hydroxychloroquine, contrary to what is claimed in the main stream media, is relatively safe and also somewhat effective in symptomatic covid-19 cases. At least: if it is administered in combination with zinc sulphate and presumably azithromycin. In vitro the efficacy against virus replication has been unambiguously demonstrated, in clinical trials the picture is more mixed. Other studies also show that getting rid of a shortage of vitamins C and D has a strong positive effect. This probably also applies to vitamin K.. Patients with severe symptoms showed without exception from Nijmegen's research to have a greatly reduced vitamin K level.

Furthermore: testing, testing and testing again. Preferably rapid tests. Those who test positive should be legally required to go into self-quarantine for 14 days.

Leave a Comment

English