This could be very useful information in the weeks to come, as the media and “experts” continue their screeching about a second wave, and issue demands that we must once again lock down for the survival of humanity.

These are the people who always tell us they make their decisions based on science and data, right? (Except when it comes to determining a person’s gender.) So you’d think they’d be interested in the now-available data that compares what happened in the 42 lockdown states compared with the eight who didn’t lock down.

You want to save lives, right? Apparently the best way to do that is to let people live their lives:

A new analysis by The Sentinel, a Kansas nonprofit, compares the 42 states that shut down most of their economies with the eight that did not. The latter group includes mostly rural states with some small metropolitan areas: North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Utah. Private employment on average fell by 7.8% between May 2019 and May 2020 in these states while plunging 13.2% in the others. Rural state economies generally rely more on “essential” services like agriculture and food production, and some industries like energy and hospitality would have shed jobs regardless of the lockdowns. Still, private job losses were higher in states that locked down like Colorado (9.5%) compared to economically similar ones that didn’t like Utah (4.6%).

Yet per-capita Covid fatalities in states that stayed open were on average about 75% lower than those that locked down. One reason is that deaths in most states, regardless of whether they locked down, have been concentrated in nursing home facilities and minority communities that have higher rates of underlying health conditions and multigenerational housing. This is a main reason hospitalizations and deaths continued to surge in states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Massachusetts long after lockdowns took effect. About half of deaths in New Jersey and Illinois have been in nursing homes, and most others have been in dense low-income minority neighborhoods where social distancing is difficult.

The results of this analysis show definitively what many of us suspected all along: It was a fool’s errand to force low-risk groups in low-risk areas to stay locked down. It wasn’t hard to identify the locations and demographic groups that faced the real risk, and it would have been very plausible to focus precautionary measures there rather than applying them to everyone.

Most people simply showing up for work at their everyday jobs were not at extremely heightened risk. Rather, such risk presented itself to those in heavily crowded environments where underlying health problems were already present to a serious degree.

Also deserving more attention here is the criminally foolish order given by several governors – including Andrew Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer – that forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients whether they wanted to or not. The high percentage of deaths that occurred in nursing homes confirms what anyone with a brain could have seen coming: These orders turned nursing homes into veritable death traps – exposing people who were high-risk because of their age and compromised health, and elevating death rates by a matter of thousands.

Cuomo at least admitted his mistake and rescinded the order. Whitmer to this day refuses to do so.

Riddle me this: If Donald Trump had issued a national order forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, how far along would the impeachment hearings be by now?

The pandemic is no politician’s fault. But the political class’s response has been an unmitigated disaster. Tens of millions of jobs have been at least temporarily destroyed. Public spending has exploded beyond the ability of Washington or any state to manage, with at least $3 trillion being added to the national debt this year alone. People with other serious health concerns didn’t seek medical treatment – and some of them died – because they were scared of catching the coronavirus. Mental health problems, suicide, domestic violence and drug use almost certainly rose as people spent months on end stuck at home. And foolish Congress-imposed disincentives to work have left companies trying to operate, or reopen, struggling to find people who want to return to their jobs.

And we now know from the result of analyses like these that the states that implemented these absurd lockdowns didn’t save any more lives on a per-capita basis than those that refused. Indeed, the states that refused did much better.

This is information we should not lose sight of as the current hysteria about spikes in new cases reaches its inevitable crescendo. The politicians who got off on ordering everyone how to conduct every aspect of their lives are surely eager for another shot at it. Fun fact: The lockdowns didn’t work. They didn’t save lives and they put millions of people out of work.

No matter what happens with new case numbers, we should never let politicians do this to us again.

Read the full article here: