Government officials and public policymakers should have just trusted people to act rationally and responsibly and take precautions without any mandates, at least data from the 2020 wave of the COVID-19 pandemic proves.
This compelling determination was made after a meta-analysis study of 24 scientific papers, revealed the true evidence by a team of researchers led by Professor Steve H. Hanke, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.
If there was any benefit to mortality rates, it was due to forced closures of bars and restaurants. Both traffic and gastrointestinal deaths were down.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic,” the researchers said.
This was the same conclusion a team at the World Health Organization said in 2006 about the public response to the 1918 influenza pandemic.
Other studies point out that the term “COVID” was simply substituted as the cause of death in place of the annual flu and cold numbers. There was no cause to mandate such extreme measures and points toward a worldwide plan of governments control.
“In the early stages of a pandemic, before the arrival of vaccines and new treatments, a society can respond in two ways: mandated behavioral changes or voluntary behavioral changes,” the paper said. “Our study fails to demonstrate significant positive effects of mandated behavioral changes (lockdowns). This should draw our focus to the role of voluntary behavioral changes.”
This and similar studies through the years have concluded there is no empirical evidence that compulsory government policies and lockdowns, including closing businesses, churches and public gatherings prevented deaths from Covid-19.
It just wasn’t worth all this as “lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced Covid-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”
Some non-pharmaceutical interventions, like hand-washing and keeping a distance at supermarkets, are difficult to force by mandates. In many cases lockdowns had detrimental and unintended negative consequences. Banning people from relatively safe open public spaces and forcing them to spend all their time at home with family, who may be asymptomatic and infectious, is one example, the researchers said.
Please Support These American Owned Businesses