Coronavirus Critical

COVID19: The Deep State Has Made Its Move

Economic Collapse is Imminent!
This Is It! Lock And Load... Final Warning!
The Shit Is About To Hit The Fan... Download Our Immediate Action Plan Now!

Yet Another Study Shows—Yet Again—That Lockdowns Don’t Work

Ryan McMaken
January 26th, 2021
The Mises Institute
Comments (6)

This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute. 

Although advocates for covid-19 lockdowns continue to insist that they save lives, actual experience keeps suggesting otherwise.

On a national level, just eyeballing the data makes this clear. Countries that have implemented harsh lockdowns shouldn’t expect to have comparatively lower numbers of covid-19 deaths per million.

In Italy and the United Kingdom, for example, where lockdowns have been repeatedly imposed, death totals per million remain among the worst in the world. Meanwhile, in the United States, states with the harshest lockdown rules—such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are among the states with the worst total deaths.

Lockdown advocates, of course, are likely to argue that if researchers control for a variety of other variables, then we’re sure to see that lockdowns have saved millions of lives. Yet research keeps showing us this simply isn’t the case.

The latest study to show the weakness of the pro-lockdown position appeared this month in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, authored by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, and John P.A. Ioannidis. Titled “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19,” the authors compare “more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions” (mrNPI) and “less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions” (lrNPI). More restrictive interventions include mandatory stay-at-home orders and forced business closures. Less restrictive measures include “social distancing guidelines, discouraging of international and domestic travel, and a ban on large gatherings.” The researchers compare outcomes at the subnational level in a number of countries, including England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. This is then compared against countries with less restrictive measures, primarily Sweden and South Korea, where stay-at-home orders and business closures were not widely implemented.

The conclusion:

We find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country….In none of the 8 countries and in none out of the 16 comparisons (against Sweden or South Korea) were the effects of mrNPIs significantly negative (beneficial). The point estimates were positive (point in the direction of mrNPIs resulting in increased daily growth in cases).

That is, the more restrictive lockdown measures pointed to worse outcomes.

This data suggests that the theoretical underpinnings of the lockdown philosophy are wrong. As summed up by Bendavid et al.,

The conceptual model underlying this approach is that, prior to meaningful population immunity, individual behavior is the primary driver of reductions in transmission rate, and that any NPI may provide a nudge towards individual behavior change, with response rates that vary between individuals and over time. lrNPIs could have large anti-contagion effects if individual behavioral response is large, in which case additional, more restrictive NPIs may not provide much additional benefit. On the other hand, if lrNPIs provide relatively small nudges to individual behavior, then mrNPIs may result in large behavioral effects at the margin, and large reductions in the growth of new cases.

Translation: mild measures encouraging caution on exposure to others probably lessen the spread. Therefore, more stringent measures will surely do an even better job of limiting the spread!

But this doesn’t appear to be the case. Rather, the authors suggest those areas with lower covid mortality are areas where the public pursued low-hanging fruit in terms of slowing the spread. This included canceling large, crowded events and limiting travel. More stringent requirements on top of this appeared to produce no beneficial effect, and, if anything, had the opposite of the intended effect.

This study, of course, is just the latest in a long line of similar studies calling into question the assumption—for it is only an assumption—that harsh lockdowns lower mortality.

For example, back in May, researchers at The Lancet concluded that “hard lockdowns” don’t “protect old and frail” people, nor do they decrease mortality from covid-19. Later, a July study in The Lancet stated: “The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million, where a longer time prior to the implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases per million.”

In an August 1 study, also published by The Lancet, the authors concluded, “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”

A June study published in Advance by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner found that the data “strongly suggests” that

the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).

In fact, the overall trend of infection and death appears to be remarkably similar across many jurisdictions regardless of what nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are implemented by policymakers.

In a paper published with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), authors Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha found that covid-19 deaths followed a similar pattern “virtually everywhere in the world” and that “[f]ailing to account for this familiar pattern risks overstating the importance of policy mandated NPIs for shaping the progression of this deadly pandemic.”

Refusing to be daunted by these holes in the official narrative, lockdown advocates often insist that lockdowns must be tolerated because “it’s better to be safe than sorry.”

But this is a highly questionable notion as well.

Lockdowns and other forms of mandated isolation bring with them a host of health problems of their own. As Bendavid et al. note, restrictive NPIs:

Includ[e] hunger, opioid-related overdoses, missed vaccinations, increase in non-COVID diseases from missed health services, domestic abuse, mental health and suicidality, as well as a host of economic consequences with health implications—it is increasingly recognized that their postulated benefits deserve careful study.

Perhaps not surprisingly, data on excess mortality during the covid-19 pandemic suggests only two-thirds of excess mortality can be medically connected to covid-19. As explained in a study in JAMA:

“Some people who never had the virus may have died because of disruptions caused by the pandemic,” says Dr. Steven H. Woolf, the director emeritus of the Virginia university’s Center on Society and Health and first author of the study. “These include people with acute emergencies, chronic diseases like diabetes that were not properly cared for, or emotional crises that led to overdoses or suicides.”

Increases in dementia deaths were especially notable.

And these effects can also be felt in the long term. As I showed in an April 30 article, unemployment kills. Economic crises, such as this one that was made worse by mandatory shutdowns and stay-at-home orders, leads to countless “years of life lost” through more suicide, heart disease, and drug overdoses.

Moreover, given the nature of the shutdowns and who is affected, this has lopsidedly affected women and especially Hispanic women, who are heavily represented in the workforce behind the service industry businesses shut down by government-imposed business closures.

The cumulative effect can be quite large. In a new study from Francesco Bianchi, Giada Bianchi, and Dongho Song from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors conclude that the economic fallout—in terms of unemployment and its effects—will lead to nearly nine hundred thousand deaths over the next fifteen years.

Of course, not all of the economic pain that coincided with the covid-19 panic of 2020 can be blamed on forced shutdowns. Many people would have likely minimized contact with others voluntarily out of fear of the disease. This would have indeed caused economic distortions and greater unemployment in some sectors.

But, as Bianchi, Bianchi, and Song admit, the lockdowns “contributed to further reduce economic activity” above and beyond normal voluntary reactions to covid-19. Combining these facts with what we know from the new Bendavid et al. study—namely that voluntary measures accomplished the bulk of mitigation—suggests the “further reduction” in economic activity produced no additional health benefits. That is, the portion of economic destruction wrought by forced shutdowns was inflicted upon the public for nothing.

Prior to 2020, of course, this was common knowledge. In a 2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism called “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D.A. Henderson, the authors conclude:

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.

Yet, “public health” bureaucrats suddenly decided in 2020 that decades of research was to be thrown out the window and lockdowns were to be imposed on hundreds of millions of human beings.

Mandatory Lockdowns vs. Voluntary Social Distancing

It should be noted that none of these researchers questioning the lockdown narrative express any problem with voluntary measures to reduce exposure to disease. Few are even likely to oppose measures like avoiding mass indoor gatherings.

But those sorts of measures are fundamentally different from mandated business closures and stay-at-home orders. The problem with mandatory lockdowns—in contrast to voluntary social distancing—is highlighted by the fact that they indiscriminately rob vulnerable populations of the services and assistance they need. And by “vulnerable populations” I mean anyone who is vulnerable to any life-threatening condition. Although we’re being conditioned to believe that deaths from covid are the only deaths worth noticing, the fact is that the world includes people who are vulnerable to suicide, drug overdoses, and to economic ruin—which comes with countless secondary effects in the form of health problems. By denying these people the freedom to seek an income and secure the social and medical support they need, we are essentially saying that those people are expendable and it’s better to tilt the scales in favor of covid patients.

But as the mounting evidence discussed above suggests, the lockdowns don’t even produce the desired effects. So vulnerable people suffering from depression, untreated cancer, and other life-threatening conditions were forced to simply suffer unaided for no justifiable reason. This was done to fit a political narrative, but it was based on a batch of bad assumptions, half-baked science, and the arrogance of politicians.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]

President Trump is Breaking Down the Neck of the Federal Reserve!

He wants zero rates and QE4!

You must prepare for the financial reset

We are running out of time

Download the Ultimate Reset Guide Now!

    Author: Ryan McMaken
    Views:
    Date: January 26th, 2021
    Website: https://mises.org/

    Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to SHTFplan by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

    SHTFPLAN is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

    CBD Oils, Isolates, Supplements And Information

    6 Comments...

    Vote: Click here to vote for SHTF Plan as a Top Prepper Web Site
    1. Andrea.Iravani. says:

      Jeffrey Dahmer was a gay homophobic, serial killing cannibal that was so terrified of people finding out that he was gay that he lured at least 33 young men into his apartment, raped them, and murdered them to kill the evidence that he was gay, and then cannibalized them to destroy the evidence that he was also a murderer.

      The mentally incompetent psychopaths that spy on me are extremely similar to Dahmer, their darkest secret is that they are mentally incompetent, so mentally incompetent that they have had to resort to spying on me, data theft, invading my property and even my brain. Their fear of being discovered for being mentally incompetent, unimaginative, frauds is a much greater fear for them than being exposed as sadistic, terrorists with deviant and sadistic personality disorder that have violated my rights, property, and even brain.

      They would be much better off if they realized and accepted that they are unqualified to be in any field that entails any thinking, leadership, or authority, because if they were qualified for any of those, they would not be doing to me what they have been, and have disqualified themselves from all such fields for abuse of authority or abuse power if they are in such positions.

      Intelligence cannot be purchased. A teacher or university cannot make an idiot intelligent. A degree is not any indication of intelligence. You are idiots. Just accept it and get jobs in manual labor or factories if you have had to resort to hacking, invading my life, property, brain, data theft, or impersonation.

      The sooner that you accept the fact that you belong in manual labor or factory positions, the better off you will be.

      Andrea Iravani

      • Andrea.Iravani. says:

        What they have done to me is every bit as monstrous, outrageous, unforgiveable, unacceptable, inexcuseable, and tabu as what Jeffrey Dahmer did. They really need to make amends and end their lives. The world would be better off if they were dead. There is no way to deny it. They are psychopaths. They are hell bent on annihilating the world. Let it begin with them annihilating themselves in a mass suicide. If their is any doubt about this, ask yourselves why they just keep using fraud, terrorism, corruption,crimes against humanity, and nihism to cover up their previous fraud, corruption, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and nihilsm.

        Ask yourselves why it is that every major corporation had offices in the World Trade Towers and only 3,000 people died on 9/11 with destruction of four buildings and four plane crashes. Think of how many just did not show up for work that day in order for there to be such a low fatality rate for such an occurrence. It is because they were terrorists in an organized crime ring that conspired to save their own lives, reap wind fall profits, and go to war against seven innocent countries murdering millions of innocent people. They are evil terrorist monsters unentitled to forgiveness. They are every bit as bad as the government that they conspired to do it with. The government never would have gotten away with it if it were not for their collusion. The government that colluded with these monsters that worked in those buildings are now on a crusade to save the terrorists that have reaped not only all of the economic gains, but reaped $21 trillion in accounting errors, mass grand scale bail outs for incompetent, corrupt, businesses, corrupt government institutions, and corrupt individuals at every one elses expense.

        They are still pretending that they were justified in the covid response. You can’t reason with a lunatic or a mentally incompetent half wit, and pathological lying psychopaths refuse to confess their crimes. Terrorism is a religion for them, obviously! They won’t stop doing it!

        Andrea Iravani

      • Andrea.Iravani. says:

        There is no legal grounds for crimes under NDAs. If you need to know what is legal, read the constitution, including its amendments.

        All criminal activity is null and void from being disclosed under any and all NDAs.

        A corrupt judge’s ruling in no way nullifies or undermines the constitution or any of its amendments. It simply means that the judge was corrupt and must be removed from office.

        Andrea Iravani

      • Andrea.Iravani. says:

        All crimes are not covered under NDAs. Any illegal activity is exempt from NDAs. If you need to know what is legal, read the constitution, including its amendments. So, what that would essentially be would be is accepting a bribe to remain silent, which is also totally illegal.

        All criminal activity is null and void from being disclosed under any and all NDAs.

        A corrupt judge’s ruling in no way nullifies or undermines the constitution or any of its amendments. It simply means that the judge was corrupt and must be removed from office.

        Andrea Iravani

    2. Andrea.Iravani. says:

      They say that the government does not like being embarrassed by being exposed for curruption, which seems really hard to believe since they keep resorting to corruption. If their was any last remaing doubt in anyone’s mind that the government was totally corrupt, the scamdemic,, lock downs, masking, banning of freedom of assembly in all things except BLM and antifa riots, and vaccine fraud would have laid all remaining doubt about systemic corruption and a financial system of domestic terrorism as economic policy starting with 9/11. The staged events on 1/6 with the FBI using their cultivated Manchurian Candidate QShahmen, with heavy attendance by police and at least 20%
      military personnel, then being used as a lame excuse to impeach a person that is not the president in order to evade all responsibility for the economic fall out of the scamdemic which the pyhrric victor and remaining co-conspirators have been left to clean up the mess of, in hopes to create yet another staged event most likely by paid deep state military personnel for yet another act of fraud and terrorism to turn off communications for everyone except themselves and steal by using SOP303.

      Everyone on earth knows that you are totally corrupt, totally mentally incompetent, and totally evil!

      Pardon Assange!

      You’re scum, and you know it, and so does everyone else!

      Andrea Iravani

    3. The worst hit city in Massachusetts for COVID-19 was Chelsea, as small, working-class city just north of Boston. When the state investigated the conditions there, they found hordes of illegal immigrants jammed into sun rooms, basements and attics will only marginal access to plumbing, electricity and heat. Such people would have been safer out working that closed in with each other under such conditions and housing like this is common in migrant-rich areas, especially agricultural regions. The PSA’s we see on TV promoting lockdowns show happy families in comfortable homes enjoying time together while the reality is a far cry from that for many people. To make matters worse, it has been shown that vitamin D is essential in warding off viral infections and forcing people inside cuts their sun exposure and makes them more vulnerable.

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

    Commenting Policy:

    Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn't immediately available. We're not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you're not a robot posting random spam.

    This web site thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.