Become a Clash Insider!
Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.
Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.
Funny how the Lockdown Advocates are suddenly changing their tune now, eh?
What could have changed to make these Democrats flip the script after 10 months of insisting that everything stay shut down?
Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20, but that’s just a weird coincidence, right?
So we’re all just going to pretend this narrative happened magically & organically? pic.twitter.com/bfz95e9T8Y
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 15, 2021
First up, New York Governor Andrew COVID Cuomo. During his State of the State address, Gov. “Grandma Killer” Cuomo said that the state needs to reopen now before there’s nothing left to reopen.
We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass. The cost is too high. We will have nothing left to open. We must reopen the economy, but we must do it smartly and safely.#SOTS2021
— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 11, 2021
No, really?
You mean “300+ Days to Slow the Spread” isn’t working?!
The hell you say!
NEW YORK’S ‘NEW NORMAL’–Retail Chains Abandon Manhattan Because It’s ‘Unsustainable’
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has also expressed a sudden change of heart where lockdowns are concerned.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Thursday said Chicago restaurants and bars need to be allowed to reopen “as quickly as possible” not just to help those businesses survive, but also to cut down on instances of private parties where people don’t take proper precautions against COVID-19.
Under the state’s virus mitigation plan, Chicago’s restaurants and bars were forced to halt indoor service in late October. While Gov. JB Pritzker has said some regions of the state can begin rolling back some COVID-19 restrictions starting Friday if they meet certain virus thresholds, reopening of indoor dining wouldn’t happen until each region moves back at least three more phases, and Chicago is not yet on track to begin easing restrictions.
Thursday morning, Lightfoot said she plans to have a conversation with Gov. JB Pritzker about how to begin rolling back virus mitigation efforts ASAP.
“I want to get our restaurants and bars reopened as quickly as possible,” she said…
…Lightfoot noted the restaurant industry is highly regulated and would be “one of the safer places” for people to visit as state restrictions start to ease.
“They’ve gone above and beyond to put in mitigation controls inside of the restaurants,” Lightfoot said. “I feel very strongly that we are very close to a point when we should be talking about opening up our bars and restaurants.”
Source: CBS 2 Chicago
Now the Media (D) is jumping on the anti-lockdown bandwagon after casting anyone who questioned the efficacy of lockdowns as “Grandma Killers” while giving Governor Cuomo a free pass and an Emmy Award.
A study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.
The peer reviewed study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation on January 5, and analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.
The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which instituted less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.
The researchers used a mathematical model to compare countries that did and did not enact more restrictive lockdown orders, and determined that there was “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.”
“We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures,” the research said.
Source: Newsweek
Well, it’s nice of them to suddenly notice.
There are some very vocal voices in the medical community (as well as those outside it) that have been opposed to government-imposed lockdowns for some time now.
- DEAR CNN: Thousands Of Medical Practitioners And Medical & Public Health Scientists Are Against Lockdowns — Is THAT News?
- WHO’s Special Envoy On COVID-19 Urges World Leaders To ‘Stop Using Lockdowns'(VIDEO)
- Doc Posts Twitter Thread On The ‘Unknown Side Effect Of Lengthy Lockdowns’ Related To COVID-19 And Lack Of Exposure To The Common Cold
- CORBETT REPORT Takes A BLOWTORCH To Lockdown Orthodoxy (VIDEO)
- If Lockdowns Work, Why Is COVID Spreading Like Crazy In California?
Check out is this very, very long (but worthwhile) thread on Twitter with 30 studies about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. It is important to note that some of the studies listed below have not yet been peer-reviewed, but the findings are consistent with those that have been reviewed.
studies since March 2020. Below are 30 published papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy (despite unconscionable harms) along with a key quote or two from each:
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions become effective”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“the model does not support [the] estimate that lockdown reduced the case reproduction number R by 81% or that more than three million deaths were averted by non-pharmaceutical interventions.”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70 only”
“Strategies that minimise deaths involve the infected fraction primarily being in the
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
might actually increase the total number of deaths from covid-19”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“For example, the data…shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased…lockdowns with >99% statistical significance. Indeed…infection rates have declined after reopening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses).”
“In 14 states, more than 50%
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (ie schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021)”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“Our findings … further raise doubt about the importance in NPI’s (lockdown policies in particular) in accounting for the evolution of COVID-19 transmission rates over time and across locations”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“This study shows that the virus is already here, and we must find ways of living with it such that it caused no or minimal human and socioeconomic losses in … Nigeria as a whole…. going back to the lockdown should never again be entertained”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“Whether a county had a lockdown has no effect on Covid-19 deaths; a non-effect that persists over time. Cross-country studies also find lockdowns are superfluous and ineffective (Homberg 2020). This ineffectiveness may have several causes. “
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
“we present data demonstrating that mortality due to covid-19… could have been largely predicted even before the pandemic hit Europe, simply by looking at longitudinal variability of all-cause mortality rates in the years preceding the…outbreak”
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
There are of course anecdotal observations as well–e.g., Florida is doing better than California despite DisneyWorld having been open for months and California having no current plan to ever reopen anything, let alone Disneyland.
I could do a similar thread on the harms of
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
have limited effectiveness at best AND horrible side effects. @FatEmperor @kerpen @AlexBerenson @MonicaGandhi9 @ClayTravis @adamcarolla @markgeragos @NickHudsonCT @AJKayWriter @MartinKulldorff @J_GallagherAD3 @KevinKileyCA @pnjaban @justin_hart @RepMcClintock @MichaelYeadon3
— Brumby (@the_brumby) January 13, 2021
Lockdowns do indeed have costs and some of them aren’t financial ones.
Related:
- California Doctors Say They’ve Seen More Suicides Than COVID-Deaths During Quarantine
- WATCH: This Spicy CNBC Exchange Perfectly Encapsulates A Lockdown-Divided America
- Hey Lockdown Zealots — Should We Follow THIS Science About Asymptomatic Spread?
- How A 14-Yr Old Girl’s Science Project Led To Global Lockdowns During The COVID-10 Pandemic
The Lockdown Zealots are always talking about The Science™ but there is no science that supports these aggressive, repeated lockdowns. Suddenly, they’re changing their tune after advocating for lockdowns for almost a year. I can understand looking at lockdowns as a “circuit-breaker” measure early on in the pandemic, but we know so much more now than we did in March 2020, it’s pretty stupid to continue to advocate for them when they have dire costs of their own and may not even do a damned thing.
The only thing that can be taken away here is that this wasn’t really about The Science™ at all — there were political reasons that these Democrats advocated for lockdowns. It’s the same reason that Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to table a skinny COVID relief bill — they were doing it to hurt President Trump.
Well, congrats. It worked. Now that people have suffered and lost their businesses and livelihoods because of these lockdown lunatics, we need to make sure that Cuomo, Lightfoot, Newsom, Whitmer, and their ilk also lose their jobs. We need to back solid Republican candidates and try to win over some independents and some Blue-Dog Democrats who recognize that this has been political manipulation that has hurt people. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s got to be done or we’ll be at the mercy of these hypocrites forever.
