It all started with a very basic tweet from Alex Berenson about the joke lockdowns have been all along.
Starting to look like if we'd reopened faster we'd have even fewer deaths
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) May 26, 2020
CORRECTION: As someone just pointed out, the estimate was actually from @hhsgov and @fema (@nytimes highlighted the @cdcgov, but in reality CDC merely provided data). My error.
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) May 26, 2020
CDC report actually shows the virus was never as dangerous or deadly as we were led to believe but you know, WEAR A MASK if you don’t want grandma to die or whatever.
Enter Team Apocalypse:
Alternatively: We're not going to come close to the predicted 3000 daily deaths (good news! You were right!) because of lockdown/mitigation policies you opposed. https://t.co/3D5Qf49kfn
— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) May 27, 2020
So Mickey seems to think the lockdowns are why the virus wasn’t as deadly … interesting.
Brit Hume asked him a very poignant question:
Mickey, maybe you can answer this. No one else has: where are the studies or even data points that show that stay-at-home policies are more effective than more moderate measures including physical distancing, frequent hand-washing and crowd avoidence, esp. indoors? https://t.co/VUHP6xdsR1
— Brit Hume (@brithume) May 27, 2020
I haven't looked for studies. Seems a hard finding to tease out since hardest hit states will lockdown, whether or not it works. But a) I live in CA where most attribute at least some of our low death rate (100 per 100K, vs. NY's 1,518) to our early lockdown 1/2
— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) May 27, 2020
b) Do you really think NY wouldn't have many more deaths if businesses & stores had stayed open-with people shopping normally etc as celebrated by Berenson in upstate towns-and going to work? Also c) we were deciding when we didn't know much. So err on safe side. Now we know more
— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) May 27, 2020
Nothing “safe” about lockdowns. The collateral damage has been enormous. Also, none of the studies cited by NRO, as far as I can tell, distinguishes between moderate precautions and lockdowns.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) May 28, 2020
‘Nothing safe about lockdowns.’
He’s right you know.
Lockdowns didn’t actually do much to help, even the data shows as much.
Sorry, not sorry.
So the answer seems to be that there are quite a few studies, which @RAVerBruggen lists here: https://t.co/oilyYpEPRV Several contrast stay-at-home with more moderate measures. There are studies on other side listed too. But you can't say there's no evidence for lockdowns. https://t.co/Ui1fhmBl7c
— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) May 28, 2020
*shrug*
Not to mention that an enormous number of deaths were in nursing homes and LTC facilities that were required to take COVID patients.
— Mike (@VeritasPerpetuo) May 28, 2020
The very nursing homes Democratic governors put very sick COVID patients.
Yup.
The only people confident in their solutions are non-experts. Epidemiologists say they still don't know enough about the virus to say.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) May 27, 2020
Plenty of non-experts think they know.
Welcome to Twitter.
***
Related: