It should be safe to say that the United States is finally starting to move past Covid-19 as herd immunity nears closer and closer. The debate over whether lockdowns were a good pandemic response has been raging since day one with each side attempting to grasp at whatever immediate evidence is available.
Article by Ethan Yang from AIER.
The overwhelming evidence at this point seems to suggest that after controlling for various outliers, most sweeping policy responses like stay-at-home orders and business closures have very little correlation with stopping Covid-19. After factoring in the economic and social damage of lockdown policies, the case for their long-term use becomes untenable. This fact has been hinted at almost since the beginning of the pandemic and increasingly confirmed by the latest data.
Jeffrey Tucker noted all the way back in July of 2020 that,
“Already in mid-April questions arose. Prof Isaac Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies Program at Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development, looked at the data around the world and concluded that the virus comes and goes after 70 days regardless of the policies deployed. He found no relationship at all between locking down and transmission and death.”
In August of 2020, I noted in an analysis here that there seemed to be little correlation between lockdowns around the world and superior performance. Some of the strictest countries like Belgium and the United Kingdom had some of the worst results. Policies that seemed to work in some countries like Brunei were copied and replicated in other countries like Peru with little success.
In January of 2021, a study published by Stanford researchers comparing eight countries that implemented lockdowns with two counterfactuals that did not concluded the following,
“In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020. 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 (major interventions) provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond lrNPIs (light interventions).”
In April of 2021, Amelia Janaskie and I published an analysis of a pandemic response ranking put out by the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley. The ranking attempted to score the performance of states based on cases, deaths, and testing. However, when we compared the rankings given by the Institute with deaths per capita per state, we found a weak correlation. Furthermore, the ranking failed to account for economic and social damage which is admittedly hard to quantify but extremely important when comparing pandemic policies.
Perhaps some of the most insightful data that discredits the necessity and effectiveness of lockdown policies is this report from the Heritage Foundation. In particular, it noted that people in states without lockdowns voluntarily reduced their mobility as Covid-19 cases and deaths spiked. That is why regardless of lockdowns, Covid cases and deaths seem to follow similar patterns as people voluntarily take measures to slow the spread.
Lockdowns not only artificially reduced activity beyond necessary thresholds, they created undue social as well as economic strife. Provided below is a chart demonstrating mobility data in states with stay-at-home orders and those without. It is clear that in states without stay-at-home orders, individuals still voluntarily reduced their mobility in response to rising cases and deaths. The stay-at-home orders only produced more severe reductions in activity that were likely unnecessary.
We should not pretend that there would not have been economic and social damage without lockdowns. Pandemics certainly cause recessions and social upheaval but lockdown policies exacerbate these issues while promising little in return. In an article here, Jack Nicastro and I explored how despite the historic association of recessions with pandemics, lockdowns made the Covid-19 downturn much worse.
Why Focused Protection?
The late Dr Donald Henderson, most famous for leading the eradication of smallpox, noted in an essay on responding to pandemics that,
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”
He was responding to a debate on whether experimental lockdown policies that affected vast swathes of society would be more effective than more light-handed and focused policies. Building on this idea and in the face of growing evidence, the idea of focused protection was famously articulated by the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020. Although it is up to interpretation as to what that means in specific contexts, it largely advocates for light-handed policies rather than lockdowns. It advocates for the majority of society to practice voluntary decision-making while taking important steps to shield vulnerable populations.
The efficacy of this approach in hindsight is demonstrated by the mobility data comparison mentioned above and the performance of states like Florida and Texas, among others that have ended most if not all of their lockdown policies. More importantly, it appears that success in protecting vulnerable populations such as nursing homes rather than implementing lockdowns explains far more about why certain states had more deaths than others.
There is a strong correlation between deaths per capita and the proportion of nursing home populations lost to Covid-19 as shown by this graph here.
Although nursing home residents comprise about 1 percent of the US population, they make up about 40 percent of all Covid deaths; in Sweden that number is 50 percent. This information points us in a direction that suggests that minimizing Covid deaths is not about closing schools and businesses, but ensuring that nursing homes are protected. This notion is supported by an analysis published by two researchers at AIER that found when total Covid deaths per state are plotted with total nursing home populations per state,
“The trendline shows a strong correlation between the two variables (R-squared = 0.68), suggesting that the level of deaths within a state may be related to the number of LTC residents.”
Florida is perhaps one of the best examples in the US of a state that took steps to shield nursing home patients, which resulted in relatively low deaths compared with the rest of the country despite having one of the oldest populations. The Palm Beach Post writes,
“In contrast, (Ron) DeSantis prohibited Florida hospitals from discharging patients with the disease to the state’s 4,400 long-term care facilities, which are home to 150,000 residents and employ 200,000 people.
That policy, he said, is one of the key reasons an average of only two elder-care residents per 100,000 people have died in Florida since the pandemic began in mid-March. The actual number is 3.5 per 100,000.
In New Jersey, out of every 100,000 people in the state, 51 nursing home residents have died. In New York, nearly 27 have died. Even Colorado, which has had a comparatively low 1,067 deaths, more than 10 nursing home residents have died per capita.”
In light of this information, it seems that much of the death toll associated with Covid-19 would have been avoided had policymakers focused on protecting vulnerable populations such as nursing homes, rather than shutting down all of society.
As the United States nears the hopeful end of its public health crisis, the mounting evidence domestically and abroad seems to suggest that harsh lockdown policies were not only overkill, they were counterproductive. The data suggest little correlation between minimizing deaths and lockdown style policies, but a strong relationship with protecting vulnerable populations. It is important to understand that pandemic policies do not occur in a vacuum. On top of not stopping the virus, they unleash economic, social, and institutional damage. In light of this information, it is increasingly apparent that a strategy of focused protection which respects the voluntary functions of society while taking reasonable steps to accommodate vulnerable populations would have been the most optimal pandemic response.
‘The Purge’ by Big Tech targets conservatives, including us
Just when we thought the Covid-19 lockdowns were ending and our ability to stay afloat was improving, censorship reared its ugly head.
For the last few months, NOQ Report, Conservative Playbook, and the American Conservative Movement have appealed to our readers for assistance in staying afloat through Covid-19 lockdowns. The downturn in the economy has limited our ability to generate proper ad revenue just as our traffic was skyrocketing. We had our first sustained stretch of three months with over a million visitors in November, December, and January, but February saw a dip.
It wasn’t just the shortened month. We expected that. We also expected the continuation of dropping traffic from “woke” Big Tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but it has actually been much worse than anticipated. Our Twitter account was banned. Both of our YouTube accounts were banned. Facebook “fact-checks” everything we post. Spotify canceled us. Medium canceled us. Apple canceled us. Why? Because we believe in the truth prevailing, and that means we will continue to discuss “taboo” topics.
The 2020 presidential election was stolen. You can’t say that on Big Tech platforms without risking cancellation, but we’d rather get cancelled for telling the truth rather than staying around to repeat mainstream media’s lies. They have been covering it up since before the election and they’ve convinced the vast majority of conservative news outlets that they will be harmed if they continue to discuss voter fraud. We refuse to back down. The truth is the truth.
The lies associated with Covid-19 are only slightly more prevalent than the suppression of valid scientific information that runs counter to the prescribed narrative. We should be allowed to ask questions about the vaccines, for example, as there is ample evidence for concern. One does not have to be an “anti-vaxxer” in order to want answers about vaccines that are still considered experimental and that have a track record in a short period of time of having side-effects, including death. One of our stories about the Johnson & Johnson “vaccine” causing blood clots was “fact-checked” and removed one day before the government hit the brakes on it. These questions and news items are not allowed on Big Tech which is just another reason we are getting canceled.
There are more topics that they refuse to allow. In turn, we refuse to stop discussing them. This is why we desperately need your help. The best way NOQ, CP, and ACM readers can help is to donate. Our Giving Fuel page makes it easy to donate one-time or monthly. Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal as well. We are on track to be short by about $4100 per month in order to maintain operations.
The second way to help is to become a partner. We’ve strongly considered seeking angel investors in the past but because we were paying the bills, it didn’t seem necessary. Now, we’re struggling to pay the bills. We had 5,657,724 sessions on our website from November, 2020, through February, 2021. Our intention is to elevate that to higher levels this year by focusing on a strategy that relies on free speech rather than being beholden to progressive Big Tech companies.
During that four-month stretch, Twitter and Facebook accounted for about 20% of our traffic. We are actively working on operating as if that traffic is zero, replacing it with platforms that operate more freely such as Gab, Parler, and others. While we were never as dependent on Big Tech as most conservative sites, we’d like to be completely free from them. That doesn’t mean we will block them, but we refuse to be beholden to companies that absolutely despise us simply because of our political ideology.
We’re heading in the right direction and we believe we’re ready talk to patriotic investors who want to not only “get in on the action” but more importantly who want to help America hear the truth. Interested investors should contact me directly with the contact button above.
As the world spirals towards radical progressivism, the need for truthful journalism has never been greater. But in these times, we need as many conservative media voices as possible. Please help keep NOQ Report going.
Promo for Mike Lindell's New Daily Show
All ORIGINAL content on this site is © 2021 NOQ Report. All REPUBLISHED content has received direct or implied permission for reproduction.
With that said, our content may be reproduced and distributed as long as it has a link to the original source and the author is credited prominently. We don’t mind you using our content as long as you help out by giving us credit with a prominent link. If you feel like giving us a tip for the content, we will not object!
JD Rucker – EIC