Posted on 04/14/2020 4:32:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Why are governments the world over rendering hundreds of millions of their citizens jobless, impoverishing at least a billion people, endangering the family life of millions (straining marriages, increasing child and spousal abuse, and further postponing marriage among young people), bankrupting vast numbers of business owners and workers living paycheck to paycheck, and increasing suicides?
The reason given is that we must lock down virtually all human social and economic activity in order to prevent millions of people from dying of the coronavirus and overwhelming hospitals.
But is it true? Was this lockdown necessary?
In order to answer these questions, we need to know how many people would have died from COVID-19 if we hadn't ruined the world's economic life.
The truth is we don't know. And the truth is we never knew. A large swath of the "expert" community cloaked itself with unscientific certitude, beginning, on March 16, with a model from the Imperial College London -- the source governments relied upon for the decision to ruin their economies -- which projected about 2.2 million Americans and half a million Brits would die.
Almost every national leader, politician and media outlet in the world believed that model. As I explained in my last column, modern men and women have substituted "experts" for prophets and priests. Science is the secular religion, and "experts" are its prophets and priests. In fact, they have greater authority among the secular, especially those left of center, than the pope of the Catholic Church has among Catholics. Whereas popes have invoked the doctrine of "infallibility" twice in the history of the Catholic Church, "experts" invoke it every day among the secular faithful.
But on what grounds are we to believe that millions would die without ruining the American -- and the world's -- economy? Without our being told by an omniscient God, there is no way to know the definitive answer.
But here are some data that cast doubt on those assumptions, based entirely on the only metric that matters: deaths per 1 million. The number of confirmed infected people is meaningless, since so few people anywhere have been tested for the virus, and we don't know how many people already had the virus and never knew it. (Moreover, asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic carriers of the virus constitute the majority of those infected.)
As of yesterday, according to the Worldometer website, the United States ranked 12th, with 71 deaths per 1 million people. (I have not included San Marino and St. Martin because they have such small populations.)
France's death rate is 229 per 1 million, three times greater than that of the United States, and it went on national lockdown March 17. America didn't go on national lockdown because that decision is the responsibility of states. So, let's take California, the most populous American state (and therefore nearest to France's population). California went on statewide lockdown March 19, two days after France. The death rate from coronavirus in California is 2 per 100,000. Two. Deux.
That means France, which went on lockdown only two days prior to California, has more than 10 times the death rate.
And Nebraska, one of the few U.S. states that has not locked down -- to the intense anger of the state's Democrats at its Republican governor -- has a death rate of less than 1 per 100,000 (according to the Washington Post's daily listing of U.S. coronavirus deaths).
What do these statistics say about the efficacy and indispensability of a lockdown?
To give you an idea of how unreliable much "expert" thinking is, the Los Angeles Times published an article on April 10 titled "California's Coronavirus Death Toll Is Way Below New York's. Here's Why."
In it, the authors, needless to say unquestioningly, reported that Nicholas Jewell, identified as "a UC Berkeley biostatistician," explained why California had so many fewer deaths than New York:
"Just putting those controls in place a single day earlier makes a huge, huge difference in the growth rates," Jewell said, referring to California Gov. Gavin Newsom's March 19 lockdown order, whereas New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo waited three more days to lock down New York state. That, according to the expert from UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times, explains the "huge, huge difference in the growth rates" between the two states.
Then the article added a line that undermined its entire thesis:
"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis didn't impose a stay-at-home order until April 1." Apparently, it never occurred to the Los Angeles Times authors to even look up Florida's death rates. The nonconservative media have been largely worthless during this crisis -- intellectually vapid, and, along with "experts," the primary stokers of panic.
If a few days' delay in ordering the lockdown of a state (or country) makes a "huge, huge difference" in death rates, Florida should have had a worse death rate than New York, let alone California. Yet Florida's death rate is among the lowest in the country: 24 per 1 million -- despite the fact that Florida, along with Maine, has the largest percentage of elderly people (those 65 and over) in any American state.
And then there is Sweden, the one industrialized Western democracy that did not shut down -- engendering intense anger from scientists and other "experts," as well as left-wing media (i.e., virtually all major media) across the world. Sweden, which still has its restaurants and businesses open, is far below Spain, Italy, Belgium, France, the U.K., the Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxembourg -- all of which have national lockdowns -- in deaths per 1 million. Yes, Sweden's death rate per 1 million is higher than its Scandinavian neighbors, Norway and Denmark, which did lock down their economic life. But as of the latest report, in the past two days, Sweden, which has almost exactly the same number of people as Denmark and Norway combined, lost 20 of its citizens to the coronavirus, while its neighbors lost 18.
The left blames President Donald Trump for our crisis (as if only America is undergoing economic ruin and loss of life).
If they were honest, they would blame reliance on "experts" and "modeling." But they hate Trump more than they love Americans -- or truth.
Has the Lockdown Worked?
—
At destroying the best economy the country has ever had? Perfectly.
All these debates about lockdown overlook voluntary isolation. Methinks people would have withdrawn anyway without formal orders.
If they were honest, they would blame reliance on “experts” and “modeling.” But they hate Trump more than they love Americans — or truth.
...
President Trump should we use this in his video that I’m sure he will use today at the Presser. Truth hurts. But I doubt these people are capable of pain. They’re just flat-out evil.
We’ll find out in November.
Regardless of whether it was needed originally (I think it wasn’t), it sure as heck isn’t needed now! Open it up!!!!
Stupid, stupid, stupid leaders. Political inertia is killing our country.
I could see it the first week but when the data improved change course..
But they could not bring themselves to say we were wrong and need to change course
They even changed the reason for the lockdown...
Younger people are so scare it will take months to get back to normal
Now it is we need to test,test,test
before we go back to work...
There fools
Yes, but you need the media to whip up the appropriate amount of terror, which they enthusiastically did
Absent the government direction how do you self-isolate and keep your job? True, millions have lost their jobs because of the lockdown but they are also eligible for financial support because of it. Self isolate and quit you job to do it and you don't qualify for unemployment.
I thought the Original Intent, was to slow the spread, not to overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It wasn’t to totally eradicate the virus, which is impossible
The virus probably has been here since December or earlier...
The doctors treated it as the flu
“Sweden, which has almost exactly the same number of people as Denmark and Norway combined, lost 20 of its citizens to the coronavirus, while its neighbors lost 18.”
California had the disease in Nov/Dec way before the lockdown and should be opened up.
‘Yes, but you need the media to whip up the appropriate amount of terror, which they enthusiastically did’
yes, but for media to whip up frenzy, we need the sheeple who enjoy being strongarmed to feed the frenzy; lots and lots of young and middle aged women, and men who lack self esteem and preen their virtue to appeal to the frightened female vibe...this is why we are where we are; the sheeple want it...
Prager may be correct with his analysis. But he may be wrong as well. Here is a little history that goes back to what the infection and death rates were in the U.S. on March 12, 2020:
March 12
1598 infected
41 deaths
2.5% death rate
That is all we had at that time, a death rate of 2.5%. A week later we had:
March 19
12,018 infections
174 deaths
1.4% death rate
Still a very high death rate. This in the time frame of the start of the lockdown. A week later:
March 26
81,836 infections
1159 deaths
1.4% death rate
A steady and high death rate. One more week:
April 2
241,626 infections
5821 deaths
2.4% death rate
OK, so now we believe these death rates are overstated - lots of people catch it, minor symptoms, never reported. That is probably true. I woiuld not be surprised if we end up at .1% for the death rate, a mere 330,000 American deaths if everyone caught the virus.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But it doesn’t work well for real time projects.
The “flattened” curve worries me. Such curves show depressed activity (less hospital beds needed at one time), however the flattened curves are typically three times longer. The total deaths under the curve seem to statistically the same. It seems the virus kills the same number of people, just over a more spread out time period. It looks to me like herd immunity is at play with or without lockdowns and social distancing. So, with the lockdown, the same number die, but we kill the country in the process?
Iceland randomly tested 10% of their population. 50% of those positive and asymptomatic. I’m not sure the lockdown has accomplished anything but crashing our economy and proven that the vast. majority will follow authoritarian edicts and happily turn their neighbors i. for not doing the same
Don’t bother to call me names for saying so I have been called them all already
‘I thought the Original Intent, was to slow the spread, not to overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It wasn’t to totally eradicate the virus, which is impossible’
that is precisely the point I tried to make a week ago on a local fearmongering FB page, and for my trouble I was run out by a bunch of snarling divas and one or two male cohorts, prissily claiming that I cared more about my 401k (never mind that i converted mine to income annuities) than I did about children dying and being deprived of their parents on their deathbeds...
Methinks people would have withdrawn anyway without formal orders.
It’s why I’m against seat belt laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.