According to research by a Kansas-based nonprofit group, The Sentinel, published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the per-capita death rates from the coronavirus was 75% lower in states that did not initiate a lockdown compared to states that did.
If, the lockdowns were effective, you would expect it to be the exact opposite.
The Wall Street Journal notes:
“GOP governors have faced enormous media pressure to lock down their states in solidarity with Democrats, and some now are getting browbeaten to shut down again amid coronavirus flare-ups. So it’s worth pointing out that states that didn’t lock down this spring kept the virus under control and experienced fewer deaths than most [of the states] that did.
Of course, not only did these states have fewer deaths, their economy is also in much better shape. WSJ writes:
“A new analysis by The Sentinel, a Kansas nonprofit, compares the 42 states that shut down most of their economies with the eight that did not. The latter group includes mostly rural states with some small metropolitan areas: North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Utah. Private employment on average fell by 7.8% between May 2019 and May 2020 in these states while plunging 13.2% in the others.”
But this is not the first time a similar discrepancy has suggested the lockdowns were ineffective.
A survey of hospital admission in New York, discovered that 66% of the new COVID cases involved people who were considered non-essential workers and were participating in the lockdown. If the lockdown was effective, you would expect most of the new admissions would involve those who were not quarantined to their homes. READ: REVEALED: 66% of New York state coronavirus hospitalizations are people staying at HOME and NOT essential workers – which begs question: Does lockdown even work?