More Data Shows that Lockdowns Were Far From Effective


Covid 19 affected peoples’ lives in different ways. Government across the world thought they should intervene and found themselves busy looking for solutions to this issue. One of the steps which many countries took was to cease all human interactions via order of the state. The United States of America has performed two large-scale experiments with the American people.

The large scale experiment was the extent of the compliance of individuals when faced with losing their jobs, not interacting with their families, and staying put. The experiment was by many means successful, if the end goal was compliance. But it was rather not when it came to the matter of preventing the spread of COVID-19. Despite, the lockdown, the plague would continue to spread throughout the United States, much like it did throughout the rest of the world.

The results of the experiments indicated that locking down the economy couldn’t help you prevent the spread of disease.

These erroneous policy decisions imposed by those who are far from hurt by these actions cost the United States dearly. It has weakened its economy, provided a frenzy for asset purchases, and increased the level of people who are reliant on the government and the nonprofit sector for basic necessities that range from to housing. These policy decisions have had no benefit to people as the cost of stimulus must be borne by the people through taxes, inflation, wealth, and loss of life due to poor mental health because of these policy decisions. Recall that the lockdown was imposed in states where there were COVID outbreaks to no avail.

Luskin on Lockdowns

Donal Luskin, an economist at TrendMacro noted “measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.”

There was strict lockdowns in the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and even California. These six states contained many cases, and led during the early days of the pandemic. Surprisingly, despite these strict lockdowns, they found themselves to still be in a state of distress.

While New York, DC, Michigan, and California imposed some of the most draconian requirements on their restaurants and businesses, they found their caseloads were increasing. Conversely, Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and other states that were more relaxed on lockdown related impositions would note that they did not witness a significant portion of cases.

The point is that if states were more relaxed standards were comparable or less to cases and deaths those that imposed more stringent ones, then lockdowns made no sense. Why did it have to take place in the first place? When it did not take place at all at anytime in history? Sure, in recent pandemics, individuals, even in the United States wore masks, but never did they have to suffer the tryanny of a lockdown that robbed them of their jobs, ability to move around freely, and carry on with their lives as they well pleased.

The reason why this is important is because it makes one wonder why they had to go through an increase in loans via the PPP, the SBA EIDL, and other assistance measures to support businesses. Further, it also makes one think about the countless levels of economic destruction that took place over the past year due to the lockdowns. While the economy may seem like it is booming, that they may be a temporary re-injection or renewal due to the stimulus. Indeed, with elements like inflation rearing its head and other factors such as individuals taking out significant levels of margin to