Savor Our Victory Over the Establishment
Why E. Jean Carroll Is Now the Subject of a Justice Department Investigation
Here’s the Tweet About Graham Platner That Nukes This Fake Narrative About Trump
Trump's Physical Went Off Without a Hitch, but the Liberal Media Tried to...
Jill Biden Once Again Shows What a Terrible Person She Is
There Might be a Special Guest at the NBA Finals...and the Left Would...
We Clinched Two Big Redistricting Wins Yesterday
Prediction Markets Are Not News and Neither Is CNN
Spare Us the Selective Outrage
250 and Hauling
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Learns the Cost of Racial Identity Politics
New York Is Taxing Itself Into Irrelevance
The Long War of Attrition: Iran, Trump, and the Nuclear Deadlock
Beware Distracted Drivers This Summer
Can AOC and Bernie Sell Socialism in Big Sky Country?
Tipsheet

If Biden's Inauguration Doesn't End the Lockdowns, Maybe This New Study Will

If Biden's Inauguration Doesn't End the Lockdowns, Maybe This New Study Will
AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

A peer-reviewed international study found lockdowns in the early months of the pandemic provided no significant benefit in slowing the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus when compared to voluntary measures like social distancing and travel reduction. The study, published in the Wiley Online Library, comes after several months of brutal lockdowns upended life and caused severe economic damage in the United States. 

Advertisement

Given the harmful consequences of lockdowns, a group of Stanford researchers set out to assess the effects of lockdowns compared to less restrictive measures. The researchers compared data from 10 different countries, two of which did not implement lockdowns -- South Korea and Sweden -- and found "no clear, significant beneficial effect of [stay-at-home orders and business closures] on case growth in any country." The countries analyzed in the study include the U.S., England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. 

While the lockdowns had "no clear, significant" benefit on case growth, lockdowns do have clear and significant consequences. Suicides and drug overdoses are up, birth rates are down, and millions are out of work.

In October, Dr. David Nabarro, the World Health Organization's special envoy on Covid-19 said, "Lockdowns have one consequence that you must never ever belittle and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."

That same month, thousands of doctors and scientists signed the Great Barrington Declaration, calling on leaders to abandon lockdowns given the "physical and mental health impacts" accompanying such measures. 

"The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice," the experts declared. 

Advertisement

Still, Democrats defended the lockdowns and accused critics of being "anti-science." In return, some on the right accused Democrats of continuing the lockdowns in order to damage the economy and give Democrats an edge in the November elections. Some are now questioning the timing of Democrats who are suddenly calling for the lockdowns to end with just days to go before Joe Biden's inauguration. 

New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo has reversed course and is now calling for businesses to reopen, as has Chicago Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Hopefully, history will properly remember which party clamored for more lockdowns and ignored all the warnings about the consequences. But libs control the history departments, so don't count on it.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement