“Lockdowns have forced 60% of American small businesses to close, during the lockdowns there has been an increase in the number of suicides, child abuse, rape and domestic abuse, there have been no benefits“– Paul Ebeling
A peer-reviewed study by Stanford University has shown that lockdowns have not provided the expected benefits. The team set out to determine if the restrictive NPI (non-pharmaceutical interventions) enacted to control the spread of The China Virus were potentially less effective than anticipated.
The Stanford team evaluated data from 10 countries that had used lrNPI (less restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions) and compared those against other countries that implemented mandatory stay at home and business closures, or mrNPI (more restrictive NPIs)
In 9 out of the 10 countries studied, the research found data supported a reduction in the number of cases when any type of NPI was implemented. But, after analysis, they did not find a significant beneficial effect using more restrictive interventions over less restrictive strategies in any of the countries studied.
In other words, the countries that implemented lrNPI such as mask wearing and voluntary social distancing experienced little difference from those implementing mrNPI.
They concluded:“While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.
“By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that mrNPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond lrNPIs.”
Political scientist and author Wilfred Reilly, PhD, evaluated the data in early Y 2020 and wrote: “There is no empirical evidence the lockdowns have had any effect in reducing the spread of the virus.” Dr. Reilly used publicly available data to compare 7 US states that had not adopted shelter-in-place orders against those that imposed restrictive interventions.
He found the numbers did not support lockdowns as a means of limiting the spread of the contagion. He also discovered that large, densely populated cities had a higher rate of COVID-19, without respect to the strategy they used.
He wrote: “The original response to Covid-19 was driven by an understandable fear of an unknown disease. The epidemiologist Neil Ferguson projected that 2.2 million people could die in the US alone, and few world leaders were willing to risk being the one who would allow such grim reaping to occur.
“However, as time passed, new data emerged. A top-quality team from Stanford University has pointed out that the infection rate for COVID-19 must logically be far higher than the official tested rate, and the fatality rate for the virus could thus be much closer to 0.1 percent than the 2 to 4 percent that was initially expected.”
Early in the medical emergency’s chaos, quantitative scientist John Ioannidis observed that “we are making decisions without reliable data.”
But, as Dr. Reilly points out, these decisions have continued, despite evidence they are not effective.
Over 6,000 scientists and 60,000 citizens have signed the Barrington Declaration, calling for a halt to lockdowns, citing “irreparable damage.”
Have a healthy day, Keep the Faith!