SEARCH
COVID-19 Policies: Do Restrictive Lockdowns Actually Work? Or might they actually kill more people than they claim to save?
Related: ethics in medicine, Expose Somewhat To Right, Expose To The Right, gears of the machine, SARS-CoV-2 aka COVID-19 aka Coronavirus
RE: The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, And Closings.
RE: Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School: Letter to the editor: Scott Atlas and lockdowns
RE: COVID-19: Great Barrington Declaration by Medical Professionals and Epidemiologists
RE: The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
RE: Time to Steepen the Curve and Accelerate Infection of Low-Risk People
RE: AIER: “The Pandemic that Killed Debate”
re: THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 UNEMPLOYMENT SHOCK ON LIFE EXPECTANCY AND MORTALITY RATES
Lockdowns would seem to have merit on an intuitive basis. So why have infection rates soared even as lockdowns continue along with widespread mask use? (universal in my neck of the woods!)
At best, these measures have allowed the infections to accelerate. Could it be that policies claimed to reduce spread are actually increasing it? Probably not, but the junk science so far cannot explain reality.
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
— Lloyd Chambers
European Journal of Clinical Investigate: “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19”
The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).
...we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country.
While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.
WIND: read that again: strict lockdowns DO NOT WORK.
Now ask: where is the rigorous scientific proof that lockdowns of any kind have benefits? That is, without straw-man comparisons, but comparisons to far less destructive alternatives.
The real question is whether lockdowns work at all, and whether they might be making things worse, at least in some implementations and/or in some areas.
Call me stupid for not understanding a basic question: if lockdowns and masks depress infections, why have infections soared?
Only a fool keeps doubling down on things that fail. Ask China, which is now suffering from uncontrollable outbreaks in spite of totalitarian lockdowns where people have to shit in a bucket inside their own dwellings (shared facilities).
How about re-opening the economy with no lockdowns at all and using risk assessment and risk mitigation strategies so as not to kill many more people via vicious government policies than COVID ever will?
Are lockdowns making things WORSE?
Is it out of the realm of possibility that lockdowns might actually be increasing infections by forcing people into close quarters for extended periods?
Here in my area, the highest infection rates are precisely where many people live in close proximity in apartments (e.g., working class people with no other option but ten people to a small apartment). When you force that group to stay together for long periods, that guarantees all of them will be infected. Where is what passes for science today on that sort of hypothesis?
For that matter, how is forcing people indoors anything but guaranteed havoc, versus encouraging outdoor activities?
