The lockdowns were a bad idea and did not work


Link here. The key quote compares this epidemic with the last two large similar epidemics, and finds this one hardly an issue:

As novelist Lionel Shriver writes, “We’ve never before responded to a contagion by closing down whole countries.” As I’ve noted, the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 70,000 and 116,000 Americans, between 0.04 percent and 0.07 percent of the nation’s population. The 1968-70 Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000, 0.05 percent of the population.

The US coronavirus death toll of 186,000 is 0.055 percent of the current population. It will go higher, but it’s about the same magnitude as those two flus, and it has been less deadly to those under 65 than the flus were. Yet there were no statewide lockdowns; no massive school closings; no closings of office buildings and factories, restaurants and museums. No one considered shutting down Woodstock.

He then notes the failures of the lockdowns this time, and its apparently inability to really make much difference in the path of the epidemic, while causing enormous harm to the economy, to the lives of millions, and to many who were denied healthcare for other reasons due to the panic and shut downs.

If only someone had pointed this out back in March.

10 comments

  • janyuary

    People DID point it out in March. I heard them. I was one of them.
    If ONLY people had insisted on honoring arithmetic instead of doctors and politicians.

  • janyuary: You should have clicked on the link in my final line. It went to an essay I wrote in March, saying the panic was unwarranted, that this was going to end up as just another variation of the flu, and that lock downs made no sense.

  • Cotour

    I like Tony Heller: https://youtu.be/FhBy2zy-Evo

    Simple and straight to the point.

  • Ray Van Dune

    Bob, just FYI, the dark blue links are easy to miss against the black text – have done it several times myself. You might use a more contrasting color, or select an option to underline the link text.

  • Ray Van Dune: The links should be a bright blue, as they are on my computer. Check your own settings, you might have the link color set to be darker.

  • Max

    Verification from Stanford University? Is this a real news site? Study shows little danger of dying from COVID-19.
    https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/chances-of-dying-from-covid-19-are-1-in-19-1million_hiUpmKCOLXg84ra.html

  • Max: OAN is a real news site that makes an effort to not be anti-Trump, all the time. I however would like a link to this Stanford study. I would like to review it, rather than depend on the media.

  • Edward

    Was the federal response a failed response, as I keep hearing people say?

    The federal government isolated the U.S. from infection sources early on, setting travel bans to prevent cases from arriving in country, even as there were cries that such bans were racist. The federal government supplied equipment to states that had unwisely sold off their stocks of medical equipment, and the federal government supplied cities with hospital ships and temporary hospital facilities in a timely manner. The federal government expedited and funded the research and development of multiple vaccines in order to protect the population sooner than could otherwise be expected.

    The federal government even allowed states, counties, and cities to violate individual liberty, the free market, freedom of religion, and our pursuit of happiness by quarantining the healthy rather than the ailing — the very lockdown, shutdown, smackdown, Great Oppression that stupid people think worked so well. So, what part of the federal response do the stupid people consider a failure? If there were a failure on the federal level, then why didn’t such a failure affect states that didn’t lock down? There are no failures in states that did not lock down, so there is no failure on a federal level.

    If there is any failure, then it is at the state, county, and city levels. New York and six other states actively sent ailing patients into nursing homes, supposedly to reduce the number of Wuhan flu patients in the hospitals. That idiotic move was done at the state level and is a state level failure. Rather than reducing the number of hospital patients, Wuhan flu began to sweep through New York’s nursing homes, and thousands of new patients were sent from the nursing homes to the hospitals.

    New York is an example of how the federal response was completely undermined by tragic decisions by the state and the city. In late February, a month after the first (supposedly racist) travel ban, San Francisco and New York Democrats called for citizens of those two cities (and maybe they meant other cities, too) to visit their Chinatowns, because it was racist not to do so. This was.a failed policy that three weeks later resulted in those cities imposing lockdown, shutdown, smackdown, Great Oppressions. Many other cities, counties, and states quickly followed their lead, even though their hospitals were not close to being overwhelmed.

    Why is it that when any jurisdiction attempts to reopen and return liberty to We the People, the reopening is declared a failure at the first false positive test and everything is closed down again? Don’t our fearful leaders understand that even with regular flus we get infections at all times, and if zero tolerance is the standard then we will never reopen, even with a vaccine, until Wuhan flu is as eradicated as Small Pox?

    Lockdowns do not prevent spread and were never intended to, but our fearful leaders are now keeping us in lockdown until infections stop completely. Slowing the spread gives the Wuhan flu additional time to find its way into nursing homes and into the homes of other people who are especially susceptible. Staying in lockdown may give a lower daily infection, case, and death rate, but the long term deaths will be higher. This was known when we locked down under the excuse to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, but our fearful leaders ignored this and kept us in lockdown much longer than they should have for any of their stated goals.

  • pzatchok

    I think we are close or even at herd immunity now.

  • Andrew _W

    Across numerous countries covid cases crashed 2 – 3 weeks after the introduction of lock-downs and rose again when those lock-down measures were relaxed. In Sweden there was no such crash in case numbers, there was a comparatively slow decline. Comparing Sweden with her neighbors points to lock-downs being at least 10 times as effective as not adopting lock-downs in the short term – if people abide by the rules. In the longer term lock-downs are less effective, better to have people voluntarily learn habits that restrict the spread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *