John Tierney looks at the evidence on Covid-19 lockdowns. Three slices:
Now that the 2020 figures have been properly tallied, there’s still no convincing evidence that strict lockdowns reduced the death toll from Covid-19. But one effect is clear: more deaths from other causes, especially among the young and middle-aged, minorities, and the less affluent.
The best gauge of the pandemic’s impact is what statisticians call “excess mortality,” which compares the overall number of deaths with the total in previous years. That measure rose among older Americans because of Covid-19, but it rose at an even sharper rate among people aged 15 to 54, and most of those excess deaths were not attributed to the virus.
…..
The number of excess deaths not involving Covid-19 has been especially high in U.S. counties with more low-income households and minority residents, who were disproportionately affected by lockdowns. Nearly 40 percent of workers in low-income households lost their jobs during the spring, triple the rate in high-income households. Minority-owned small businesses suffered more, too. During the spring, when it was estimated that 22 percent of all small businesses closed, 32 percent of Hispanic owners and 41 percent of black owners shut down. Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School, summarized the impact: “Lockdowns have protected the laptop class of young low-risk journalists, scientists, teachers, politicians and lawyers, while throwing children, the working class and high-risk older people under the bus.”
The deadly impact of lockdowns will grow in future years, due to the lasting economic and educational consequences. The United States will experience more than 1 million excess deaths in the United States during the next two decades as a result of the massive “unemployment shock” last year, according to a team of researchers from Johns Hopkins and Duke, who analyzed the effects of past recessions on mortality. Other researchers, noting how educational levels affect income and life expectancy, have projected that the “learning loss” from school closures will ultimately cost this generation of students more years of life than have been lost by all the victims of the coronavirus.
…..
If a corporation behaved this way, continuing knowingly to sell an unproven drug or medical treatment with fatal side effects, its executives would be facing lawsuits, bankruptcy, and criminal charges. But the lockdown proponents are recklessly staying the course, still insisting that lockdowns work. The burden of proof rests with those imposing such a dangerous policy, and they haven’t met it. There’s still no proof that lockdowns save any lives—let alone enough to compensate for the lives they end.
Through their blog, the professors have each expressed concern that the scientific and policy-oriented discussions about COVID-19 have become excessively polarized. This, they worry, has resulted in self-censorship, and prevented real dialogue between scientists and policy makers about the different interpretations of COVID-19 data.
“There seems to be a real reluctance to voice anything but a certain narrow and well-worn set of views about the nature of this pandemic and about the appropriate response from political and educational authorities,” Staub said.
He and his fellow bloggers have expressed concerns that mainstream media outlets often present COVID-19 data without enough context and tend to draw conclusions in the absence of reliable enough evidence.
“There was a greater interest in sculpting what our behavior would be, as opposed to letting us know what was really happening,” Dallapiccola said. “It almost felt like they didn’t want us to know certain things because it might lead to not cautious enough behavior.”
Huber elaborated that “there is, for instance, a lot of emphasis on half a million deaths. And that is a phenomenally large number. But it has never been put into context, for instance, that every year, approximately half a million Americans die as a cause of smoking and the different things that can arise from smoking.”
Paul Alexander and co-authors ask why children are being vaccinated against Covid.
Robert Morton reports on heroic Covid-tyranny resistance in Burbank, CA. A slice:
Here’s the best part: a few days ago, the Burbank City Council of Ninnies told a kangaroo-court hearing, in which it was obvious they had already made up their minds, demanding that the restaurant stop serving. A few days later, they cut power to the restaurant.
So what happened? Patriots and patrons donated generators and other gear so that the restaurant could continue to operate. And customers are still coming to the restaurant.
We’re not done yet. The Burbank City Council of Ninnies ordered the doors of the restaurant to be locked. It just so happens that Tinhorn Flats is famous for its swinging doors, like the saloons of the Old West. They cover those over at night with two large doors – which they REMOVED to prevent them from being padlocked!
Somehow, the next day, the doors reappeared and were padlocked, and so was the side entrance. Tinhorn Flats then posted picture on their Facebook page showing the side door was open, that they were open for business, and that anyone could come. As I write this article, on the evening of St. Patrick’s Day, the place is hopping and packed both indoors and outdoors. I had a wonderful burger and fries there today.
By the way, all of this followed an order by another L.A. County judge requiring the county to show evidence that the ban was necessary. This the county failed to do, but the judge sadly didn’t overturn the ban. Yet it was this ruling that bolstered Tinhorn Flats’ position that every step being taken against the restaurant was illegal.
