Lockdowns appear to have been a large policy error

“Numbers show lockdowns didn’t help contain COVID-19 — opening up didn’t boost it,” reads the headline in the New York Post.

“Six months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health — first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy,” says the ensuing article. “The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread, and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections.

“Given the high economic costs and well-documented long-term health consequences beyond COVID-19, imposing lockdowns appears to have been a large policy error.”

See entire article:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/numbers-show-lockdowns-didnt-help-contain-covid-19-opening-up-didnt-boost-it/?fbclid=IwAR1d8diScqeCQlk1oyXHLxr5b5p1baj_QrukRCiXorQUtgn3orBYrdToY-0


20 thoughts on “Lockdowns appear to have been a large policy error”

  1. Winter rehearsal in the USA: after +40 it will snow

    The collapse of the cold will be accompanied by heavy rainfall. It’is possible for the first snowflakes to fly.
    Snow cover will appear in the Rocky Mountains. From 8 to 10 September, the temperature will deviate from the norm by 15-20 degrees. Interestingly, this will be preceded by a temperature of 40 degrees. (Denver,CO)

    https://www.gismeteo.ru/news/weather/repeticiya-zimy-v-ssha-posle-40-vypadet-sneg/
    https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/us/co/denver

  2. Having read the article I came away with this quote from it –
    “The lesson isn’t that lockdowns made the spread worse — though raw evidence may suggest that — but that lockdowns probably didn’t help, and opening up didn’t hurt. It defies common sense. In theory, quarantine ought to control the spread of an infectious disease. Evidently not in practice, though we are aware of no researcher who understands why not.”
    It is that last sentence that screams out for attention. I can understand why no researcher understood why. Putting healthy people under quarantine has never been tried before, so there is no reason to assume it would be effective. You quarantine the sick, not the healthy. What is so hard to understand about that? But with everyone in close quarters under quarantine, IF one of them happens to be sick, then all are constantly being exposed until the viral load gets high enough to register as sickness. Had they not been in close contact, the viral load may never have gotten high enough to notice.

    I also was intrigued to see that they used “highly sanitized” google cellphone data to determine a distancing factor. Always nice to know, isn’t it, that google has total access to your every movement, and if by some chance you are wearing your smart watch, probably can guess by the GPS data when you are having sex.

    • I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. In East Asia, the infected were isolated and quarantined from anyone who did not have the disease. They were not sent home to infect loved ones. I would not be surprised to find that the US policy of self quarantine at home doubled or tripled infections and possibly deaths. (I recall NYC area they said 2/3 of cases were infections at home.) The CDC owes people an explanation on this.

    • Where there was more lockdown there was probably more testing. However testing may simply demonstrate that there were more people whose immune systems killed the virus in the past 3 months.

      Killed virus particles persist in the body up to 3 months.

      Also the number of cases (even killed-virus cases) is meaningless as an absolute number. Only the percent of those tested can tell us what percent have either killed the virus or are in the 97% who are in the process of killing it.

      The PCR test cannot distinguish between dead virus particles and destined-to-be-dead virus particles.

      The PCR test isn’t recommended by its creator because it is not quantitative: When the test detects one virus molecule this is NOT an infection. By definition an infection requires a certain level (quantity) of infection. The technique of the PCR test specifically multiplies the number of molecules present in order to detect them. That is the reason that the creator of the PCR test denies that it can be used for diagnostic purposes.

  3. have to diagree in Aus the lockdowns DID halt it
    and the reopen wasnt such a risk EXCEPT for lousy quarantine of incoming OS travellers who then spread it widely
    second shutdown and the numbers are droping well
    but
    at a huge cost to the economy/jobs/annoyance factors of those complying.
    your USA shutdowns werent so full on with borders shut and people really monitored heavily.
    not that theyd comply anyway
    and you had so many carriers already it prob wouldnt have worked , regardless.

  4. From the UK perspective the lockdown was to stop an unprepared health service being overwhelmed with cases. The problem now is that here incompetence reigns throughout our government and public services and presented with a serious problem they are floundering.

  5. “Lock downs appear to have been a large policy error”

    That is putting it mildly. No doubt that statement will be used by the disgraced powers that be to save face once enough of the public get wise to the big lies that were told.

  6. EVERY ONE FOR THEIR HEALTH AND ALSO AS AWAY TO STUFF GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE NEEDS TO GET THEIR VITAMIN D LEVELS WAY ABOVE 75 NMOL/L.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/lockdowns-appear-to-have-been-a-large-policy-error/

    Read this book and no every more so how stupid and biased our medical system is in thinking Vitamins are useless.

    Same levels that makes covid next to nothing could reduce breast cancer by up to 50% and more.

    https://www.oliversrealfood.com.au/products/buy-online-vitamin-d-eckhart-tolle

  7. The policies were a huge error for the many, a huge success for a small number of multibillionaires.

    What I do not understand is why Bill Gates thinks he needs any more money, if by accumulating it he destroys cash velocity in the global economy?

    Is he an unempathic genocidalist or just a slave to the capitalist mantras of greed is good?

    • Rhys, I think the name of the game is planetary rule, not mere money. Gates is a longtime mask for the intelligence community, who work directly for the Deep State. The viruses that necessitated updates of his software probably were there as a pretext to update the spyware on citizens’ computers. I see no evidence that he is a bright computer guy.
      Rather a somewhat intellectually limited guy who occasionally gets diarrhea of the mouth and shows glimpses of who he really is.

      Starting my winter seeds today, altho we’re having Santa Ana.

  8. Anyone check out Africa? The numbers of infected are nowhere near where they were first estimated to be and scientists can’t figure out why. And even if they are underreporting the numbers there are still too few infected. This according to an article today in the NY Post. Oh and BTW the leading countries with the most infected are the US, Brazil, and Russia. Strange….not a word about CHINA!

Comments are closed.