Is Anyone Defending Lockdowns Anymore?

Being proud is dangerous, causes blindness and other problems, but I am proud that I was a very early and vocal opponent of lockdowns, school closures, social distancing, mask mandates and all the other nonsense that was pushed to suppress an unsuppressible virus.  And the evidence keeps piling up that lockdowns did as much or more damage than CV-19.  Sweden was the most relaxed among countries and it not only doesn’t appear to have paid a higher health toll, but it clearly prevented harm to students and the economy.  A new paper details the benefits of its strategy.  (EA Article)

Over the course of the epidemic, Sweden had no higher excess death rate than the other Nordic countries to which it is most directly comparable or than other European countries.  Countries like Sweden with less restrictive CV-19 responses also had much better economies and economic growth than did more restrictive countries.  It also experienced a far lower budget deficit, since there was less need for government spending to make up for a shutdown economy.  In general across a variety of social and financial metrics, the less restrictive approach to the epidemic was associated with less damage.

Here, quoted directly from the abstract, are the words for policymakers to listen carefully to:   “In future pandemics, policymakers should rely on empirical evidence rather than panicking and adopting extreme measures. Even if policymakers appeared to act rapidly and decisively, the rushed implementation of strict lockdowns in 2020/21 probably did more harm than good.”  Unfortunately, gutless and brainless politicians are unlikely to pay any attention to this lesson.