What if we don’t need a vaccine for COVID-19?  All the experts have told us repeatedly that the only way to stop the spread of COVID is the development of a vaccine.  What if they were wrong?  Let me show you why we may not need a vaccine to get rid of COVID.

We must begin by explaining the purpose of the vaccine.  Here is an image from the CDC, Understanding How Vaccines Work.  It is a good read but I will give you a few highlights.

The vaccine will provide immunity to the virus.  But vaccines are not the only way to develop immunity.  This section, about how the body naturally completes the same process, is from the same CDC report.

The second way to build immunity is to become infected and recover.  Your body fights off the virus and develops the ability to fight the virus in the future.  So, there are two methods for an individual to develop immunity to a virus, infection recovery or vaccine. 

Next, instead of just considering immunity individually, we can look at virus spread from a macro view and discuss herd immunity.  The herd immunity concept is pretty simple.  If enough people become immune to a virus, it is unable to spread within the “herd.”  People with immunity become a BRAKE on infection because it cannot use them to spread to others.

Now, determining the threshold for herd immunity is not a simple process.  It is very convoluted, involves a lot of math, and different methods will give you different answers.  In the end, it is not a precise number; it is an estimate based upon the information at hand and the method used.

When COVID first began circulating, the typically accepted number for herd immunity was 60%.  60% of the population needed to be immune before the infection would lose the ability to spread.  At this point in time, that number has proven to be highly inaccurate.  If you want to read it, here is one thorough explanation about why the herd immunity number may be between 10-20%

You do not need to understand all of that science and math to see that the herd immunity percentage is not near 60%.  I can show you why the lower number is more likely to be correct with a bit of observation and a lot less math. 

We can begin by discussing one of the worst outbreak areas in the United States.  New York was the first big hot spot in the United States.  The infections rose at an alarming rate in New York, and especially in New York City.  Let’s look at a chart of the number of new COVID infections in New York over time.  The chart is provided by coronavirusbellcurve.com with data from Johns Hopkins.

And here is the chart of COVID deaths in New York. 

Both charts have that distinctive pattern.  Now, many people will tell you that the lockdowns are what stopped COVID from spreading and killing people in New York.  But I can show you why that is incorrect. 

Let’s begin with an extensive antibody study completed in New York back in April.  They tested large samplings of people for COVID fighting antibodies.  As we discussed above, you develop the antibodies by becoming infected and recovering.  The results of this study were stunning.  In New York City, over 20% of individuals had antibodies, and the number statewide in New York was 13.9%. 

Now, if you look back at the charts above, the number of new infections and deaths from COVID both declined to a very low level in New York.  There are two possible causes for this.

  1. New York implemented lockdowns and a mask mandate and these measures acted as a brake on the spread of COVID.  Or,
  2. New York reached the herd immunity threshold which acted as a brake on the spread of COVID.

By April, approximately 13.9% of New York State individuals had contracted COVID, recovered, and developed antibodies.  That falls right in line with the 10-20% needed for herd immunity suggested in the article above.  Think about that.  If that number (10-20%) is correct, it was herd immunity, not lockdowns, that stopped COVID from spreading in New York State.  If correct, the lockdowns accomplished nothing.  Well, except for causing additional damage.

So, how can we determine whether it was the lockdowns, or immunity, that was the brake on infection?  Well, we need a control group.  We need another location that we can use to compare to New York.  We need somewhere that had a significant outbreak like New York, but did not utilize a lockdown to “stop the spread.”  We can then compare results to see if there is a difference. 

But that is a challenging task.  You see, lockdowns were promoted very aggressively within political and media circles, so very few governments resisted that pressure.

Most countries gave in to that pressure and implemented lockdowns.  Here are two countries in Europe that had significant COVID outbreaks, implemented lockdowns, and had similar results to New York.  The following chart is the 7-day rolling average of daily deaths in Italy and the United Kingdom.  The chart is from ourworldindata.com.

Notice how similar those two charts are to the ones from New York.  And remember, the “experts” will tell you that the lockdowns stopped the spread in all three of these areas.  But are they correct? 

What about that control group?  What about a country that had a significant outbreak, but did not implement a lockdown?  Would they still be able to get the infection under control without lockdowns, or would it just continue to spread?

The following is the chart for Sweden.  Sweden did not lockdown.  They did not close all their schools.  They did not close restaurants, bars, or even nightclubs.  They kept gyms, hair salons, and most everything else open.  They did not restrict travel into the country.  They only limited gatherings to 50 people at a time.  And at this point, they are not even recommending mask use.  So, what happened?  Let’s look at the chart.

Does that look familiar?

How about all three of these European countries on one chart. 

Notice how the pattern is the same in all three countries and is the same in New York.

The four locations, New York, Italy, UK, and Sweden, all had significant outbreaks, and their charts look incredibly similar.  However, there is one giant difference.  Sweden did not utilize a lockdown.  But somehow, they had the same results.

The only honest conclusion is that the lockdowns and restrictions were not the brake on infection; it was the number of people with immunity.  Once enough people have immunity, the spread of infection will slow regardless of a lockdown, masks, or whatever.  To stop the spread, you must have spread.  There is no way 60% is correct for herd immunity against COVID because none of these countries are anywhere close to that number.

Now, this brings us back to the question of needing vaccines.  To stop a virus from spreading, we need enough people to be immune.  If that happens, the virus can simply disappear.  Now, is there any reason to think that this could happen with COVID without a vaccine?  Well, absolutely!

To explain how this could happen, we have to go back almost 20 years.  We all know this current virus as COVID-19, but it is more precisely SARS-CoV-2.  It has a cousin, SARS-CoV-1.  That coronavirus was the SARS outbreak from 2002.  If there is any virus similar to COVID, it is SARS.

Let me know if any of this sounds familiar.  This information is from the CDC regarding the SARS outbreak.

In November of 2002, there was a report of atypical pneumonia in China.

By February of 2003, there were reports of the virus coming from other countries in Asia.

As of March 17th, there were 14 suspected cases in the US.

Doesn’t that seem extremely familiar?

SARS continued to spread around the world, and a lot of people died.  Although not anywhere close to as many with COVID.

Now, do you remember what happened with SARS-CoV-1? 

Well, it disappeared.  Yes, it just disappeared.

Don’t get to excited.  SARS-CoV-2, our COVID, is way more contagious than its cousin based upon the number of people infected.  Any theory that COVID would die as quickly as SARS would be unfounded.  However, does that mean that COVID will not just go away like SARS?  Absolutely not, COVID could just disappear, with or without a vaccine.

Let’s look at what is currently happening in the United States to show you how we may already be moving in that direction.  We instituted lockdowns in a majority of the country and have been opening back up over the last months.  My argument since March has been that lockdowns would not stop or reduce the number of COVID infections or deaths; they just delayed them.  The data is now backing that assertion up.  (Please read my recent article if you are not aware).  

Now, despite all the opening up.  Despite much of the country returning kids to school, and many colleges opening, the number of new infections continues to decline.  On September 7th and 8th, we had the lowest number of new daily infections in almost three months.  Here is the chart of new daily infections in the United States. 

Why are infections decreasing?  Shouldn’t infections be increasing with all the increased activity?  Well, no, not exactly.  You see, the number of people with immunity is also increasing, and that is creating a brake on infection spread.  You need spread to stop the spread.  As more people become immune by recovering from an infection, the virus loses its ability to spread.

Let’s look at some more data. 

Remember all the “experts” telling us that Arizona was going to kill us all by being so irresponsible, opening up and reducing restrictions.  Let’s look at their current chart. 

Hmmm, it seems that the same pattern we saw above in New York, Italy, UK, and Sweden took place in Arizona.  Most importantly, it looks like they now have a handle on the infection spread.  They ended their lockdown, reduced restrictions, and the infections are disappearing.  COVID is no longer increasing in Arizona; it is under control.  They have stopped the spread by having spread.

And Florida, remember the Chicken Little claims about how everyone was going to die?  And, how their poor decisions would lead to the rest of us dying?  Here is their current chart.

Seem familiar?  Does that graph seem like the ones from New York, Italy, UK, and Sweden? 

Again, Florida has gotten control of infection spread by removing the lockdowns and restrictions.  The virus is disappearing in Florida despite all the doom and gloom predictions.  Ask yourself why?  You have to have spread to stop spread.

And even now, the current Chicken Little claim is that college kids are going to kill us all.  But maybe, and I am just spitballing here, those college kids will move us closer to the objective of ending this virus.  Maybe they will help it disappear?  If at this point you are still listening to chicken little “experts” instead of examining the actual data right in front of your eyes, you need to ask yourself why.  The experts and their predictions have been wrong, over and over.  Their exaggerations have missed the mark repeatedly.

Despite all the doom and gloom, and attempts to terrify us all, the data is continuing to show that we are much closer to herd immunity than we are to the apocalypse.  And if we reach that level, this virus could disappear, just like its cousin did.  

The data tells the tale.  COVID is slowly going away.  Will it go away completely?  No one knows.  But, there is a reasonable chance that it merely dies off.  The real question is if that will happen quickly or slowly.

I ask again, what if we do not need a vaccine for COVID?

COVID is a bad virus.  But the COVID Boogie Man is a mythical monster created by green journalist and opportunistic politicians.  At some point, the data will reveal the truth. 

If you want more information about how we were all misled, about how the COVID Boogie Man came to be, please read and then share my book, The Fear-19 Pandemic.  There are reviews and a free sample available on Amazon.

Maybe most importantly, share this article.  At some point, people need to understand the difference between COVID and the COVID Boogie Man.

The lockdowns failed miserably in reducing COVID infections or deaths.  Let me show you the proof?

In part one of lockdown failure, we compared two states that shared geographic location, population size, population density, and size of their largest city.  These two states were Kansas and Nebraska.  The primary difference between these two states is Kansas utilized a lockdown, and Nebraska did not.  Here is a chart of their new daily cases since the beginning of the COVID pandemic.

Kansas locked down and is blue.  Nebraska did not lockdown and is orange.

As I have long argued, the lockdowns were never going to reduce or eliminate the number of infections.  All they would do is delay them.  Once you opened back up, the infections were still going to take place.  The comparison between Kansas and Nebraska proves the theory was correct.  Kansas locked down and had fewer infections initially, but once they opened back up, their infections soared above Nebraska’s.

All the damage caused by the lockdowns (please read here) was self-inflicted because it was a flawed theory that has proven incorrect.  It was an experiment that failed.  COVID did not cause those damages; our leaders did.

Now, while the Kansas/Nebraska comparison is as good a comparison you can get, there is another one just as good.  We will compare two other states that border each other, Arkansas and Mississippi.  Mississippi locked down, while Arkansas did not.

  • The two states border each other, so they share their geographic location.
  • Arkansas ranks 34th in total population, and Mississippi ranks 35th.
  • Mississippi ranks 38th in population density, and Arkansas ranks 40th.
  • The largest city in Arkansas is Little Rock, with a population of 197,000.
  • The largest city in Mississippi is Jackson, with a population of 164,000
  • Mississippi was a lockdown state. Arkansas was not.

The two states share geographic location, have a similar total population, similar population density, and comparable size of their largest city.  This is also as good of a comparison as you can get. Let’s check the results.

Here is a chart of both state’s number of new cases of COVID on a rolling 7-day average.  Can you guess which graph is the lockdown state?

It’s pretty obvious which state instituted a lockdown, right?  Except it’s not.  The only give away is the surge in the blue line, Mississippi, which took place after they ended their lockdown.

Again, these states share geographic location, population size and density, and size of their largest city.  Mississippi (Blue) locked down due to COVID, and Arkansas (Orange) did not.  Can anyone make an argument that the lockdown worked?  If you can, it will be very thin.

The effectiveness of lockdowns was and is entirely theoretical, and the data has shown that those theories were wrong.  Our governments caused us all considerable harm for what?

“But wait, the lockdowns saved lives.”

Okay, let’s check the data. Let’s look at the number of deaths in each state on a rolling 7-day  average.

Did the lockdowns save lives?  No, that is a big fat lie.  The state that locked down had considerably more deaths than the one that didn’t.  The lockdowns were theoretical, philosophical bullshit based upon flawed mathematics (“models”) that resulted in significant damage, and did nothing to reduce COVID infections or deaths.

The worst part is that the lockdowns should have never happened, or at a minimum, should have never lasted as long.  Hopefully, you read my book where I go in-depth into how and why the lockdowns happened, and why they continued well past their expiration date.  If you haven’t, you will find a link below to purchase it on Amazon.

Here are the two most recent reviews from readers.  There are more reviews and a free sample on Amazon.

Look, if you believe everything you were told I challenge you to read this book and dispute the conclusions.  It will be a epiphany for you.  Plus, it is free if you are a member of KindleUnlimited.


Okay, let’s look closer at whether or not the lockdowns were effective at limiting the spread of COVID, and limiting the deaths from COVID. 

To do so, we will compare a couple of states, one that did a lockdown, and one that didn’t.  The states share geographic location, population size and density, and comparable size of their largest city.  The primary difference, one locked down and one did not.

We will begin by showing you a chart comparing the two states and their “new cases” on a seven-day rolling average.  

See if you can tell which state is the lockdown state, and which is not.

Can you tell which color is for the state that locked down? 

My primary question has always been, if it is not obvious that the lockdowns work, why would we use them?

The orange line is the state that did not lockdown.  They had more infections initially, but then the state that did lockdown (blue line) had more infections later.  The infections were not decreased, they still happened.  The lockdowns only delayed the infections.

I have long argued, going back to March, that lockdowns were not warranted because all they do is delay the infections; they do not prevent or stop the spread.  And this graph completely backs up that theory.  The data is starting to come in, the theoretical and philosophical justifications for lockdowns have not stood up to the facts.  The models were wrong because they were given flawed information.

Let’s take a look and compare the deaths for each state.

Again, can you tell which is the lockdown state and which is not?

The deaths do not quite follow the same pattern as the number of “new cases,” they are a lot more random.  But again, I think the chart makes the point for me.  If you cannot tell the difference between a state that did lockdown, and one that didn’t, what was accomplished?

The lockdowns did all that damage, but there is no discernible advantage gained against COVID.  Feel free to read this sample from my book about lockdowns if you are unaware of the damages.  But beyond the damages caused, the bottom line is that the lockdowns failed to reduce the number of COVID infections or deaths.  Destruction caused, but no advantage gained.

These two states in this comparison are Kansas (blue) and Nebraska (orange).  Kansas did lockdown while Nebraska did not.  These two states share a long border, so they share geographic location.  They rank 36th and 38th for population amongst the US States.  In population density, Kansas ranks 41st and Nebraska ranks 43rd.  Plus, the largest city in Kansas is Wichita, with a population of 390,000.  The largest city in Nebraska is Omaha, with a population of 469,000. 

The two states share geographic location, have similar population size and density, and their largest cities have similar size.  I challenge you to find a better comparison. 

One state locked down, one did not, but there is no discernible difference between their results in total cases or deaths.  So, what was the point? 

The lockdowns were an entirely unwarranted experiment that was ineffective and caused more damage than COVID ever could have by itself.  We destroyed our economy, eliminated jobs and wreaked businesses, damaged children and families, increased suicides and overdose deaths, reduced the health and mental health of the entire population for what?  Absolutely nothing except lots of media and political attention.  Sorry folks, you were hoodwinked.

For more information on how and why you were hoodwinked, you can find my book on Amazon.

There is a lot of controversy about COVID deaths, so let’s do a deep dive.  There are plenty of theories about how we are undercounting COVID deaths, and there are theories about how we are over counting COVID deaths.  I am not going to get into all of those theories at this point.  Instead, I will see if there is a method by which we can test the accuracy of the COVID death numbers.

There is a concept called mortality displacement.  Here is a clip from Wikipedia:

Yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not dependable, but this is a good definition of what I am going to try and identify.  We are going to look into the average or expected mortality rate for the United States over the last four months and see if there was any excess mortality or displacement.  This approach is the best shot at quantifying COVID deaths without depending solely on the COVID death counts that have had a lot of problems.

Here is a look at the mortality numbers for all causes in the United States since 2015.

Pretty shocking, right?

First, there are a few things to identify.  This is not a chart of COVID deaths, this is a chart of deaths from all causes in the United States.  They are still counting for weeks over the last month because those numbers take time to come in, and they will certainly be much higher than they are now.  So, we can only use the data up and until June 1st to test the numbers accurately.

We will use March 9th as a beginning date.  That is a pretty good starting point for COVID.

The first step would be identifying the number of expected or normal deaths per month over this time (March 9th – June 1st).  The easiest and best way to do that is to see what the average increase in deaths is year over year.  As our population increases, we have more deaths each week.  Using the data from the last four years, 2015-2019, the average increase year over year is approximately 783 deaths per week.

We can add that number to the number of deaths per week in 2019 to approximate how many expected deaths would have occurred during 2020.  The total for the period beginning March 9th and ending June 1st is 668,716.

Next, we can total up the actual deaths from all causes in that same period.  That total comes to 772,338.

The difference in expected deaths from all causes during this time and the actual deaths during this time is 103,622.

The count presented by the different sources had us eclipsing 100,000 COVID deaths on approximately May 27th.  If you add in another 3,622 over the next five days getting to the June 1st end date of our little math experiment, you find that the numbers are pretty much spot on.

What does this mean?

If you have the theory that the numbers presented are low and we are undercounting, you are most likely wrong.

If you have the theory that the numbers presented are high and we are overcounting, you are most likely wrong.

I admittedly went into this expecting there to be a discrepancy.  What did I find, nope, there is not one.

However, a couple of points moving forward. 

On June 26th, several states starting counting what they call probably deaths.  What this did show is we are probably going to have inaccurate numbers moving forward, because the current methods seem accurate.  We shall see.

Second, there is another portion of the definition I gave you before that is relevant.

This concept of harvesting, while gruesome, is a strong possibility.  If the overall number of deaths now declines over the next months, it would indicate a forward shift in mortality rather than an accurate measure of COVID’s effects.  This harvesting effect is a distinct possibility because of the high percentage of individuals over 80 and in poor health, which this virus most affected.

I will revisit this math experiment in the future as the numbers keep coming in.  But for now, you can pretty much drop all the over counting and undercounting theories and go with the count presented as accurate for the number of people we lost to COVID.