As news outlets stumble all over themselves trying to push fear, panic, and hopelessness about a second round of THE VIRUS, Brit Hume was good enough to share an article about a study proving that lockdowns do not work. Funny how we’re not seeing more of this from the rest of the traditional media.
Just kidding, we know why.
Study: “They concluded that twice as many lives could be saved if governments focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable people rather than squandering them on those who seem to face almost no risk, such as children.” https://t.co/GjktrR3OU6
— Brit Hume (@brithume) June 16, 2020
Mean ol’ Brit, always giving people hope and stuff.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion.
But wait, there’s more!
An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.
In other words, open the damn country. ALL OF IT.
Been saying this for well over two months!
— Alan J. Sanders (@AlanJSanders) June 16, 2020
Who knew this 3-1/2 months ago? ME! pic.twitter.com/ekmYYIScJh
— alliemariEEEEEEEE???????? (@alliemarie777) June 16, 2020
Unless you are a brownshirt democrat. Everyone realizes this now.
— It's Harvey. MAN_ (@frenjensenden) June 16, 2020
— dandyande (@andegolliher) June 16, 2020
Yes, please! Some rationality please! Targeted protection was ALWAYS an option. Reassessing all measures in light of what's now known about ifr would be a very good thing. If it's not the plague of the century, surely we can go back to living life.
— Amy H Blackwell (@Aimazoid) June 16, 2020
Took them six months to figure that out?
— Major Hill (@MajorHill7) June 16, 2020
To change your comments display name, click here.