Three years ago this month, a very small group of highly guarded ruling-class people from the U.K., U.S. and Europe were gathering to figure out how to lock down the country and the world. They held Zoom meetings and went to burner phones and plotted how to convince Trump to betray his own instincts.
And this week three years ago, the World Health Organisation sponsored a trip to Wuhan, China, and other cities to discover how they did it: how they utterly crushed a pathogen by smashing the liberties of the people. The WHO’s report was glowing: it worked and should be repeated the world over.
None of the rest of us knew this was happening. They knew what was coming but we did not.
The great experiment that had never been tried before. They would shut down the world economy in anticipation of a vaccine that was supposed to end the pandemic. And then, some of them figured, the whole world would be in debt to Big Pharma forever and we would be permanently acculturated to depend on them for everything. Then we go for vaccine passports and central-bank digital currencies and Big Tech too would ride high forever.
What a plan!
There were some missteps. It turned out that the vaccine didn’t work like it was supposed to. Whoops. And there was another big failure. The lockdowns didn’t actually stop the virus. Not only that, they utterly crushed everything we call society, leaving not only economic destruction in their wake but also cultural collapse and awful public health.
The U.S. was an interesting case because we have a federal system, meaning that even now, individual states can go their own way. Despite everything, the CDC did not have the power to enforce its edict. The Trump administration declared that “all indoor and outdoor venues where people congregate should be closed,” but there was no means to make that stick, much less script the pace of reopening.
South Dakota, for example, simply defied the federal Government. Georgia opened up after a few weeks even against the objections from Trump personally. Florida came next and then Texas. The rest of the ‘red states’ fell like dominos, each going back to normal over the course of the year, while ‘blue states’ stayed closed as a matter of principle: they would follow the edicts of Anthony Fauci and then the Biden administration no matter what.
This provided a fascinating test of the states. There were 50 states and 50 different plans for mitigation. Some deployed ‘stay-at-home’ orders and some did not. Some forced people indoors, some outdoors, and some not at all. Some kept forced masking in place for a long time and others made it voluntary. Some scrapped pandemic plans early and some held on to the bitter end, even keeping schools closed.
Oxford University had been tracking these mitigation strategies throughout and came up with an index. And we have seemingly endless piles of data on health outcomes, in addition to economic and demographic data on businesses, employment, income and migrations too. We have enough now to make some strong assessments on what works and what does not.
Now we have an extremely robust study that looks at all these variables and sizes up the effect in a range of areas. The study is “Freedom Wins: States with Less Restrictive Covid Policies Outperformed States with More Restrictive Covid Policies” by Joel M. Zinberg, Brian Blase, Eric Sun, and Casey B. Mulligan, as published by the Paragon Health Institute.
It’s hardly the first: Brownstone offers a list of 400 more on every aspect of the pandemic response. But it is enormously valuable because it accumulates so much data and experience and presents them in a clear way.
Here is the summary:
Our results show that more severe Government interventions, as measured by the Oxford index, did not significantly improve health outcomes (age-adjusted and pre-existing-condition adjusted Covid mortality and all-cause excess mortality) in states that imposed them relative to states that imposed less restrictive measures. But the severity of the Government response was strongly correlated with worse economic (increased unemployment and decreased GDP) and educational (days of in-person schooling) outcomes and with a worse overall Covid outcomes score that equally weighted the health, economic and educational outcomes.
We also used Census data on domestic migration to examine whether Government pandemic measures affected state-to-state migration decisions. We compared the net change in migration into or out of states in the pandemic period between July 1st 2020, and June 30th 2022, with the migration patterns over five pre-pandemic years. There was a substantial increase in domestic migration during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic trends. There was also a significant negative correlation between states’ Government response measures and states’ net pandemic migration, suggesting that people fled states with more severe lockdowns and moved to states with less severe measures.
They did a detailed study comparing Florida and California in particular:
Florida relaxed lockdowns after a short time, resulting in a low Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Index score, whereas California imposed strict and prolonged lockdowns and had one of the highest index scores in the nation. Yet the two states had roughly equal health outcomes scores, suggesting little, if any, health benefit from California’s severe approach. But California suffered far worse economic and education outcomes. And both states had substantial increases in their pre-existing domestic migration patterns. California’s severe lockdowns seemed to elicit a jump in its already high out-migration, while Florida experienced a significant in-migration increase during the pandemic as compared with pre-pandemic trends. Florida’s commitment to keeping schools open was likely a significant factor in attracting people from around the country.
In conclusion:
Severe Government measures did little to lower COVID-19 deaths or excess mortality from all causes. Indeed, Government measures appear to have increased excess mortality from non-Covid health conditions. Yet the severity of these measures negatively affected economic performance as measured by unemployment and GDP and education as measured by access to in-person schooling. States such as Florida and countries such as Sweden that took more restrained approaches and focused protection efforts on the most medically vulnerable populations had superior economic and educational outcomes at little or no health cost. The evidence suggests that in future pandemics policymakers should avoid severe, prolonged and generalised restrictions and instead carefully tailor Government responses to specific disease threats, encouraging state and local governments to balance the health benefits against the economic, educational, health, and social costs of specific response measures.
Some interesting charts from the study include this state-by-state comparison, with South Dakota at top left in figures 2 and 3 and New York at the bottom right.
This is the evidence we have based on the data we have. It is sadly not surprising. The lockdowns did not improve health outcomes. They did devastate economic outcomes. And economics is part of health which in turn is a reflection of the quality of life. The same results pertain however we shuffle the data: adjusting by age, adjusting by population, adjusting by population density. The conclusion is completely undeniable. Lockdowns were a disaster and they achieved nothing in terms of their stated purpose.
Does the evidence still matter? We shall see.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute, where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great article!
We need to continue to fight to make sure this never happens again. Most people rather forget the last 3 years, but the status quo leaves the door open for a repeat.
So how can we prevent this?
Back to own responsibility, self determination, small state, more localism.
Have I forgotten anything?
Great list, only thing missing is a backbone.
“Have I forgotten anything?”
You appear to believe the whole Scamdemic was a real event and that Lockstep Lockdowns were simply an unfortunate cock-up.
C1984 was released in order to facilitate Lockdowns, across the Western world. Alongside we had numerous NPI’s: antisocial distancing, no visitors to the home, no leaving the house except for…etc and then masks. Every single NPI was introduced with the aim of seriously undermining physical and mental health. And then, our return to ‘normal’ was almost guaranteed if we took the so-called “vaccines.”
Except the “vaccines” were designed to maim and kill.
Governments went on wholly implausible spending marathons knowing full well tax rises would be required both direct and indirect. Subsidies to renewable energy companies went ballistic and energy crises were created in order to jack prices and steal the public’s money. Food prices are going through the roof and by Summer severe poverty will be entrenched. I will stop there.
And now we have civic unrest around immigration and ULEZ as Prison Cities are being built.
C1984 was years in the planning and it is all about bringing in a One World Government. Depopulation is baked in.
Agenda 2030 spells all this out quite clearly.
Agenda 2030, exactly. They are even telling us their plans, they believe it’s all great, it’s not hidden!
Perhaps their plans will wind up being derailed because all UK political party policy-makers are discovering that pro-Lockdown, pro-Trans, pro-15min, pro-Woke, pro-WEF, pro-UN and pro-gressive policies have suddenly become toxic rather than virtuous. Perhaps the tipping point will be when Ukraine loses territory or if UK-made armaments hit Russian troops and sites?
Sound money. We somehow need to get back to real money: that is money that is backed by gold and silver. Then the governments can’t print money to throw here there and everywhere such as what they spent on covid “vaccines” and PPE and furlough and all the other ways they waste our money.
One of the things it did achieve was to bring into sharp relief how certain organisations can behave. Such as enforcing made up laws, with gross intervention into human rights, with no real value health wise.
Behaviors of individuals also came into sharp relief. There are some truly bad people out there who were exposed when given a chance to lord over their neighbors and coworkers, well, and even their family members.
Good article and detailed studies.
BUT – Where are the calculations of the dead from LDs? The injured? The record suicides? The financial implosions? The divorces? The lost businesses? It was carnage.
Saying ‘health outcomes were not improved’ as these studies state is ridiculous.
They were abolished along with lives, mental health, marriages, families, and people dying alone.
F’em all.
Personally, I am finding that my acquaintances (mainly non-family social grouping in performing arts) are adopting Osterism (aka the “pandemic amnesty”) and are trying to return to business as usual. I am two minds over this: “OK, let’s get back to having fun” versus “hell no you F’in collaborator”. Some of my acquaintances still cling to the belief that “it would have been so much worse had it not been for The Lockdowns, The Masks and The Vaxxes. I can often tell who these are by the way they virtuously shout that they have just had their n’th booster but are still going down with every respiratory bug doing the rounds this winter and “Long Covid”, along with other strange new non-respiratory ailments.
Please forgive me if you’ve read the content of this comment previously. I might find it easier if I copy and paste it in future.
I was involved in the planning for an Avian Influenza Pandemic when it cropped up years ago. This was in its early days, before we understood just how infectious, or not, it was.
Our guidelines came from people who attended the governments COBRA meetings. The government was indefatigable in that, as far as possible, it would be ‘Business As Usual’ throughout the UK. We were told that this was to be the case, despite the government knowing that most European governments intended to pursue lock-down, which, our government believed, would cause more harm than good (how very prescient).
The government intended only two changes to ‘Business as Usual’. One was to extend the number of hours truck drivers would be allowed to work, as they foresaw they would be sorely needed (something that our government evidently later forgot).
The other change was to provide more cash to the public in banks. It was believed there’d be an increase in demand for cash (M0) throughout the country. Cash machines were to be kept stocked around the clock and the Royal Mint was also to be running around the clock.
There were a series of stress tests for several weeks throughout the country. Banks were told, for example, that every employee with a surname beginning with B or F had notionally been infected, so couldn’t work. This was repeated throughout the system, creating a real problem when employees with surnames beginning with M were ‘hit’. There’s an awful lot of Mcs and Macs in the UK. Just imagine the impact in Scotland.
I can’t help but wonder if all this with the banks is another of the reasons the BoE and the government wants to get rid of cash.
So, when Covid cropped up, wouldn’t you think the government would pick up the existing, stress tested plan, dust it off, and implement them? Well, at first, that’s just what it looked to me that’s what was happening.
Then the BBC, and much of the media, started demanding to know why we weren’t doing what most European countries were intending to do, and wasn’t our government being irresponsible? Needless to say, within a very few days, Johnson folded. Who could blame him if it all went wrong, but he’d done the same thing as most other countries?
So now we can see that, so far as lock-down is concerned, Sweden did the right thing. Sweden, our government knew, was one of the countries that also intended to run as ‘Bisiness as Usual’ through any Avian Influenza pandemic. The difference is, they had testicular fortitude to stick with the system they’d planned for.
.
Bunter was, essentially, bullied into submission:
‘French newspaper Liberation, citing sources in Macron’s office, said Johnson’s decision came after the French leader gave him an ultimatum on Friday morning, threatening an entry ban on any traveller from the UK if there were no new measures.
“We had to clearly threaten him to make him finally budge,” the report quoted an Elysee official as saying.
Contacted by Reuters, Macron’s office declined to comment. But a source close to Macron confirmed there was a phone call between the two leaders on Friday. “The way it’s presented is a bit harsh, but we were indeed preparing to close (the border),” the source told Reuters.’
Probably a stitch up between Farrar, Cummings and Hancock.
Pathetic.
Thanks for that. I hadn’t come across that one.
You do remind me that the UK government also decided that there would be no restrictions on passengers coming into or out of the UK airports.
Why do we always give in to France. If they want to losethe revenue from UK travelers, let them. I’m surprised that, with all the unpredictable closures they keep having, more freight doesn’t go through other countries.
Interesting post thanks. What date was this?
If I recall correctly, it originally kicked off around early 2004 in Asia. It was the H5N1 strain which likely started in wild birds (water fowl are a particular reservoir of Avian Influenza) which spread to domestic poultry and from there to humans.
Fortunately, the transmissions to humans was difficult, since it had to get into the lower respiratory tract to infect someone, so we eventually found out that it tended to be people living really close to the birds, having them in their own huts, sometimes, that contracted it.
Those of a sensitive disposition might want to look away now.
Cock-fighting is a big thing in that part of the world. The birds are highly valued. The birds get a beating in the fights and their heads fill with mucus. Owners of prized birds would often suck the mucus out of their heads to aid their recovery, and in doing so, contract the infection.
Taking Away Your Chickens – Dr Sam Bailey (substack.com) Can I recommend viewing this video?
And that may not be entirely academic either, since the powers that be are already telegraphing that the next plandemic will be….bird flu.
May I ask whover gave my write up a thumbs down what it is you object to?
I certainly don’t expect adulation, nor for everyone to agree, but what is wrong with what I have written?
Do you think it’s a pack of lies, too long, or what? I’m genuinely interested to know.
.
The appetite existed before the lockdowns and that is because our civlisation reached its end point just before they began. If you want to be merciful you could say that they were an attempt to keep the West going for a couple of years longer. This is nothing in terms of the entropy that is about to set in. You owe it to yourself to have a full grasp of where we are now in terms of the future of our culture. I don’t like terms like ‘psychic abilities’ I prefer ther term clairvoyance. It simply means wiping the windows down so that you can look outside.
It is and was a nasty system. So either you have something else to offer or you continue to benefit or suffer from the nasty system. If you really cared you would spend every moment of your being trying to find a way out of this because it isn;t us and them it is the entirety of our situation and we are reaching a critical point. So do we go the route of fighting for what we had before or fighting for something new. You could sit back and watch a stranger mount your wife but if you haven’t mounted her yourself for three months then you can’t really say much.
Amen.
When an article contains words like “a very small group of highly guarded ruling-class people” and does not name or identify them I feel I am reading a paperback thriller. Surely now is the time to be more specific about who plotted the pandemic and what they gained from it? I worry also that the upcoming lockdown review is going to have so many names removed/redacted as to be almost toothless. Who were these people and where are they now?
It is all basic common sense. It doesn’t need to be done to know this, and what was done doesn’t even need to be studied to know this: that lockdowns are bad for all of society and don’t work. How can people who lead be just so plain stupid?