For almost one year, dictatorial Democrat governors and hypocritical Democrat lawmakers have been demanding that Americans get under their beds and stay there until the
Ebola plague Chinese virus pandemic passes. It could take months, or maybe even years until the virus with a 99% survival rate is no longer infecting citizens, but don’t worry, they told us—the government will take care of you. Many Americans believe the drastic COVID lockdowns put in place by Democrat governors that led to financial ruin for many American business owners, is a clear step in the direction of Socialism and even Communism.
An untold number of businesses have been destroyed, kids are forced to stay home in inhospitable and many times, dangerous conditions with an abusive parent or caregiver, suicides have skyrocketed and depression is off the charts—but don’t worry—the government-mandated lockdowns are for the common good, or at least that’s what the media has been telling us—until now.
Suddenly, as the inauguration date for Basement Joe is upon us, schools and restaurants are re-opening, restrictions on gyms and theaters are being lifted, and poof—just like that—far-left publications like Newsweek are publishing studies about how mandatory lockdowns may not have been the answer to keeping Americans safe from their fellow man during the Chinese virus pandemic after all.
The virulently anti-Trump Newsweek is now reporting- 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.
oThe 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.