The partial lock-downs failed to work as advertised. It’s time to end them

The empirical data, as well as antibody studies, show that the partial lockdowns need to be concluded as soon as possible.

It’s becoming quite clear that the partial lock-downs are doing far more damage than they are preventing. The case is being easily made to put an end to them. We also need to learn our lesson in not engaging it with the same strategy in the future.

Yesterday we presented the video of the two E.R. Doctors that made the point that the partial lock-downs aren’t working as advertised and that they are doing more harm than good, along with a Wall Street Journal report that examined the data and came to the same conclusion: Do Lock-downs Save Many Lives? In Most Places, the Data Say No.

We could also cite the column from our own medical expert Dr. Ted Noel in his column I’m tired of SWAG (‘Scientific’ Wild-Assed Guess) directives:

There is only one rational approach to take now. Open up America for business.

…

This opening should be “all-at-once.” The “abundance of caution” progressive approach denies the evidence, attempting to support a failed effort to “save lives” by instituting irrational programs that destroy far more than they purport to save.

There are of course some additional articles that bolster this assertion.

Professor: ‘No empirical evidence’ shows government lockdowns stymied coronavirus

That was the headline in the Washington Examiner:

Wilfred Reilly, who is a professor at Kentucky State University, posted a piece last week on the Spiked website that examined the effectiveness of various strategies federal and state governments have implemented to contain the outbreak.
…
Wilfred said he looked at coronavirus infection data and considered state statistics such as population, population density, median income, median age, and diversity of each state. He said he found no evidence proving “lockdowns are a more effective way of handling coronavirus than well-done social-distancing measures.”

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

This was the title of another opinion piece in The Hill by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, that made several key points on this issue, citing five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the partial lock-down. Facts 3 and 4 are the most important here:

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

He pointed out the same thing that was referenced by Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi in the above-referenced video:

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease.

The bottom line: Balancing out the costs and the benefits

Economist and commentator Walter E. Williams set forth the important point that we have to weigh the costs and benefits in everything we do. The situation is not based on the horrid assertion from some such as the Authoritarian.. er.. Associated Press that it’s a question of ‘Health vs. Wealth’.

As we have seen, there are costs with partially shutting down the economy. These are health and monetary as well as costs to the cause of liberty. As Dr. Williams pointed out in his column, politicians only talk about one side of the story.

In a theoretical world where there are no societal or human costs to a shutdown, it would be easy to justify. But that isn’t the case. Lives have and will be lost due to the partial lock-down.

Taking into consideration that we’ve proven that the partial lock-downs didn’t work as advertised, we need to get past them and be wary of anyone who proposes such actions in the future.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

---