from MISES Website
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 most harsh lockdown rules, such as New
York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, are among the states with
worst total deaths.
research keeps showing us this simply isn't the case...
Titled "Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of Covid-19," the authors compare,
More restrictive interventions include mandatory stay-at-home orders and forced business closures.
Less restrictive measures include,
The researchers compare outcomes at the subnational level in a number of countries, ,
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.
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.,
Therefore, more stringent measures will surely do an even better job of limiting the spread!
But this doesn't appear to be the case.
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,
Later, a July study in The Lancet stated:
In an August 1 study, also published by The Lancet, the authors concluded,
A June study published in Advance by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner found that the data "strongly suggests" that,
In fact, the overall trend of infection and death appears to be remarkably similar across many jurisdictions regardless of what non-pharmaceutical 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,
Refusing to be daunted by these holes in the official narrative, lockdown advocates often insist that lockdowns must be tolerated because,
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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, to 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.