BartenderElite
Verified User
Makes sense.
Study: Lockdowns Had Largest Impact in Destroying Economic Activity
- Thread starter The Anonymous
- Start date
The NBER paper suggested government restrictions were primarily responsible for the economic damage.
Data from Oxford University and the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics show that states with the most restrictive policies had substantially more unemployment than states with the least restrictive policies.
Nor is this the only evidence that suggests lockdowns, not the virus, were the primary economic destructor.
A brief look at history shows there was no massive economic collapse in previous pandemics that were similarly deadly (or more deadly).
https://thinkcivics.com/study-lockdowns-had-largest-impact/
this is true
Oh, so you are saying that if there were no shutdowns and everything continued as usual while Covid spread unchecked people would be flocking to bars and restaurants as if nothing unusual was happening
As I noted, common sense dictates that Covid would have closed down the economy regardless of what Gov’t did, that Americans would not be eager to go to restaurants and bars knowing that a virus with zero immunity or preventive measures was spreading unchecked thru social contact
I gave you the key words, bitch.
Go ahead and debunk it. But you can’t, can you, ignorant bitch?
The Anonymous
Bag On My Head
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lock-downers, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome.
The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/
Well then take it up with them, I am not a Dem. You Freedum ends at the tip of your nose and does allow you to be a health hazard to others. Just so you know, You be your I'll are why this Nation has done so badly in getting the virus under control.
They ignore the reality of how countries like Australia and SK have done far better than the US, the funny thing we all know had trump pushed the lockdowns they would be all for them, it is how cult members work.
Probably because those countries had far fewer incoming flights. We had flights coming from both China and Europe with unknowingly infected passengers. If Trump would have pushed lockdowns, Dems would have gone ape shit.
Sure they would....you trying to convince me or you?
You. Was I successful?
Nope, because your reply is only part of the reason and your claim is nothing more than you slanted opinion.
A good part of the reason. Yes, it was my opinion. Just as it was my opinion that Dems would go ape shit if Trump implemented lockdowns. Governors did it and Trump still caught hell for it.
Problem is in today's connected world, by the time you realize there is an issue it is too damn late, so you have to deal with it in the best way, ignoring it is not best way. Strange you would bring up trump, since you claim he is not in charge of what the States do, debatable, but yet the right is screaming about Biden not opening all the schools and he does not control that action, sounds like a double standard to me.
It was already a serious issue before anyone knew it. Early predictions and the fact that China tried to hide it put everyone "behind the 8-ball." Could it have been handled better? Hindsight is always 20-20.
I didn't claim Trump wasn't in charge of the states, but states do have states rights. Schools have been opening here as cases go down, local officials have been making that call here in PA.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I seriously doubt it. For example, here in Arizona all those restrictions on business activity were in place, mask wearing was mandatory in public. Yet, cases went up dramatically in the last couple of months. So, that is physical proof that the restrictions and mask wearing didn't slow or prevent the spread of Chinese Disease.
I suppose you can try to argue it would have been worse, but there's no way to prove that so it is arguing proof of a negative. On the other hand, the spread in AZ went down after an initial rise then shot back up dramatically even as restrictions remained in place. That indicates that something besides the measures the government forced on society was driving the spread. It also makes a strong argument that the government's actions were of little or no use.
The Anonymous
Bag On My Head
Prove it.