In light of the past two years of nonstop media madness, it is rather enjoyable to observe pesky facts continue getting in the way of Dr. Fauci’s nonstop fear mongering.
Especially when those pesky facts pertain to the lockdowns that he was so insistent upon.
Alas, unfortunately for Dr. Fauci and the rest of the lockdown crowd, an inconvenient report from the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that the strictest states effectively achieved nothing, aside from decimating their own economies.
Written by Phil Kerpen, Stephen Moore, and Casey B. Mulligan, the study effectively debunks a number of lies, or at minimum disinformation, routinely spun by corporate media regarding COVID and lockdowns.
As noted by the study’s authors, “the correlation between health and economy scores is essentially zero, which suggests that states that withdrew the most from economic activity did not significantly improve health by doing so.”
Leftist states certainly did not improve health, but they definitely elevated crime rates, especially with the arrival of widespread “smash and grab” robberies.
Amusingly, the report also inferred teachers in leftist states, alongside students, had little motivation to return to work.
“Economy and schooling are positively correlated … which suggests a relationship between the willingness of the population (or its politicians) to resume normal activity in business and school.”
On a more disturbing note, the report also admitted that it would be difficult to differently link policymakers to mortality rates; unlike educational and economic decisions, which do originate directly from policy, mortality rates emerge from a variety of factors.
However, as the researchers grimly note, the “nursing home” polices of some states just might be directly attributed to poorly construed policies.
“The economy and education components were likely influenced by decisions made by policymakers, but it is unclear if that is the case for the mortality component,” the researchers write, “[though] one possible exception is nursing home policies, which may explain why several states, especially New York and New Jersey, performed poorly on mortality metrics.”
Ultimately, in terms of economics, education, and mortality, the researchers confirmed that New Jersey, New York, and California “were among the worst in all three categories: mortality, economy, and schooling.”
Needless to say, the report also cites from multiple other reports that corroborate its findings, bringing more inconvenient facts to the discussion.
“Using other methods, several studies have also found little health benefit of closing schools or businesses. Several studies find low COVID-19 transmission rates in schools. Herby, Jonung, and Hanke’s (2022) meta-analysis finds that “lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average,” the researchers write, in reference to an inconvenient John Hopkins University peer reviewed article that revealed the inefficacy of lockdowns.
“Mulligan (2021b) finds that in-person workplaces were often safer, in terms of COVID transmission per person per hour, than households were due to the additional prevention efforts made in workplaces,” the researchers continue, “several other studies have found that efforts to reduce COVID mortality had costly unintended consequences.”
In light of all these studies, which are right in line with what the Democrats once labeled as “facts,” what does Emperor Fauci, the government bureaucrat now worth at least $10M have to say?
“I think the restrictions – if you want to use that word, which I tend to shy away from, lockdown – they certainly prevented a lot of infections, prevented a lot of hospitalizations, and prevented a lot of deaths. There’s no doubt about that,” Fauci brayed.
“No doubt,” huh?
Guess all those peer-reviewed studies are the equivalent of Fox News to Fauci.
Ironically, it does seem that Fauci is at least aware of these studies, given that he also tempered his “no doubt” remarks during the same BBC interview.
“You know, I don’t think we’re ever going to be able to determine what the right balance is,” Fauci mused, in reference to lockdowns.
Likely because Democrats don’t even balance their own behavior with their own policies, as evidenced by Newsom cavorting in Michelin-starred restaurants, mask-less and shoulder to shoulder with so-called health professionals while all Californians, aside from the ultra-elite, were on effective house arrest.
During an ABC appearance, Fauci actually admitted that people should decide for themselves the degree of risk they should want to take, which has been rather obvious for close to a year now.
“[COVID] is not going to be eradicated, and it’s not going to be eliminated,” Fauci proclaimed, “And what’s going to happen is that we’re going to see that each individual is going to have to make their calculation of the amount of risk that they want to take.”
You don’t say …
Author: Ofelia Thornton