New Peer-Reviewed Study: Lockdowns Are No Good Against Coronavirus
Across the world, people have been suffering because of coronavirus crackdowns marketed as means to limit or even stop the spread of coronavirus. Yet, looking around, many people have observed that it seems there is little to no benefit from oppressive measures such as stay-at-home and business closure orders given that coronavirus spread and dangers appear not to be significantly reduced in countries that impose harsh mandates as compared to those that maintain greater respect for liberty and commerce.
The same seems to be the situation when comparing state and local governments in America that have adopted policies justified as reactions to coronavirus that range from draconian to rather limited.
A new peer-reviewed study examining the effects of coronavirus policies employed by various governments backs this conclusion. The study by scientists at Stanford University concludes no benefit can be determined to come from harsh measures such as stay-at-home and business closure mandates.
Read more about the new study, and find a link to it, at a Sunday ZeroHedge article here.
While coronavirus crackdowns appear to provide no benefit in countering coronavirus, they impose tremendous damage on people around the world. Businesses are destroyed. Employment is eliminated. Economies are scuttled. People’s ability to interact with each other is greatly limited. Travel is curtailed and made uncomfortable and difficult. Medical care not related to coronavirus is delayed or forgone. People are even forbidden from showing their faces. The list goes on. The coronavirus crackdowns are a horrifying example of governments at war with the people they claim to serve.