Another study confirms that if the dystopian lockdowns were intended to save lives, they failed miserably. The Heritage Foundation’s recent study of ten countries’ reaction to COVID reveals that though broad ranged lockdowns did not work, there were things that did reduce the virus death toll:
- Lockdowns that targeted those who were most vulnerable to the Coronavirus including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.
- Quarantining those who were sick, not those who were healthy.
LifeSite News reports on the study:
In another instructive comparison, “South Korea permitted much of its economy to remain open, choosing instead to engage in aggressive testing and isolating the infected,” yielding “13,979 cases and 298 deaths (0.0272% and 0.000579% of its population, respectively” as of July 22. By contrast, “Italy pursued a strict lockdown policy,” and by the same date “had 245,590 cases and 35,097 deaths (0.406% and 0.058% of its population, respectively).”
“Maintaining a strong economy and protecting public health are not mutually exclusive,” the authors conclude. “Focusing on hot spots, protecting the elderly and most vulnerable, utilizing isolation centers to prevent the virus from spreading, taking advantage of contact tracing, and engaging in appropriate testing are policies lawmakers should consider in the coming months.”
Of course, this is not the first study to expose the failure of full country lockdowns. READ: Lockdowns DON’T work, study claims: Researchers say stay-at-home orders made no difference to coronavirus deaths around the world – but prior health levels DID
And in the US: READ: COVID-19 death rate is 75% lower in states that didn’t lock down: WSJ
But if the goal of the lockdowns was to destroy the economy, they worked perfectly. It was a genius idea.