Stand with The Libertarian Institute

The Empire has us on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. The central bank has us flirting with economic-social collapse. Americans are increasingly paranoid of one another and simultaneously invested in wielding the state against one another.

The voices of the establishment are legion. The voices of dissent are few. Make your stand for liberty by supporting The Libertarian Institute today.

Science Deniers Refuse to Admit the Failure of Lockdowns

by | Apr 22, 2022

Science Deniers Refuse to Admit the Failure of Lockdowns

by | Apr 22, 2022

add a heading

As hard as it is to believe, the Chinese regime is still employing a “zero covid” strategy and claims it can eradicate covid entirely through lockdowns and vaccinations. China’s draconian, nightmarish, near-total lockdown policy—which is notably still “necessary” in spite of widespread vaccination—has recently been revived in Shanghai, where residents are now struggling to find food. But the regime has only doubled down on the policy, with Chinese president Xi Jinping declaring that “persistence is victory.”

This approach has no basis in any actual science, however, and contradicts decades of epidemiological research condemning lockdowns. Moreover, a 2021 joint study from the University of Southern California and the Rand Corporation concluded that “excess mortality increases” following “the implementation of SIP [shelter-in-place] policies.”

This week, a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the states with the harshest lockdowns tended to perform the worst in a composite measure of mortality, economic performance, and education. The states that performed the best were in many cases states where lockdowns were weak or nonexistent, with Utah and Nebraska at the top of the list.

The study, authored by Phil Kerpen, Stephen Moore, and Casey B. Mulligan, also concluded that antilockdown Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Utah “were outliers” that performed unexpectedly well compared to their neighbors. Prolockdown California, Illinois, New Mexico, and Colorado, on the other hand, performed more poorly than their neighbors.

The chief value of the report is that it takes economic, educational, and health variables and normalizes them across states. For example, it’s difficult to meaningfully compare economies when some states are far more reliant on service industries than others. In this case, the authors found the “combined economic performance” of states by taking the nature of each state’s economy into account. By this metric, the states that performed the best during the pandemic were lockdown-light states Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah. The states with the worst outcomes were lockdown-heavy Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, and Illinois.

On the matter of education—which the authors noted is closely tied to both economic performance and mortality in the longer term—the authors looked at bans on in-person education state by state and presumed resulting “learning loss.” In this case, the best performers were Wyoming, Arkansas, Florida, South Dakota, and Utah. The worst performers were California, Oregon, Maryland, Washington, and Hawaii.

Of course, if faced with statistics such as these, lockdown advocates are likely to admit that lost educational opportunities and lost economic prosperity are unfortunate. But they will say education and property rights had to be limited in the name of preventing mortality and protecting “public health.”

So what do we find when examining actual mortality and health outcomes? In this case, the authors controlled for key health variables like the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and old age.

Adjusting for these, lockdown-heavy states did, in fact, perform well, with Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, and New Hampshire coming in at the top. But lockdown-heavy states in this case were also among the worst performers, with Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and Colorado coming in at the bottom of the list.

Moreover, this measure emphasizes just how irrelevant lockdowns can be when looking at mortality outcomes. For example, if we look beyond just the top and bottom five in the mortality rankings, we find some interesting comparisons.

Age and Metabolic Health Adjusted Covid-Associated Deaths per 100K Population (Updated March 9)

Adjusting for age and obesity, Florida and Michigan are virtually identical in spite of the fact that Michigan under Governor Gretchen Witmer locked down long and hard. Florida, by contrast, is known for abandoning both lockdowns and mask mandates early. The state of Georgia—which was accused of embracing “human sacrifice” when it abandoned lockdowns early on—ranks better than much of New England (i.e., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island), which was notable for harsh covid mandates.

Rankings that fail to adjust for obesity and age, of course, miss key factors, and this can be seen in the fact that unadjusted covid outcomes tend to be especially poor in the Deep South. But the Deep South is also where obesity rates have long been among the highest, reflecting poor health outcomes in a variety of issues. Meanwhile, we should generally expect the best health outcomes from western states (excluding New Mexico, which is a regional outlier in terms of obesity), where residents tend to be thinner and in better health. Residents are generally in better general health in New England as well.

Yet once we adjust for these variables, the usual patterns don’t hold up at all. Instead, we find no clear connection at all between the length and severity of mandates and mortality outcomes.

Of course, even if lockdown states were shown to be reliably and indisputably among those states with the best health outcomes, that would still not justify the forced closure of businesses and violations of basic human rights like the right to seek income and the right to travel. Basic human rights don’t disappear simply because an unelected health worker declares an emergency.

 

This article was originally featured at the Mises Institute and is republished with permission.

About Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Our Books

thisone

Related Articles

Related

Who Do We Blame?

Who Do We Blame?

This is from The Wall Street Journal last week: FTX suffered a “complete failure of corporate controls” that culminated in an “unprecedented debacle,” its new chief executive officer said Thursday. John J. Ray, who has helped oversee some of the biggest bankruptcies...

read more
Vote Buying Surges in Advance of Georgia Runoff

Vote Buying Surges in Advance of Georgia Runoff

President Joe Biden is tottering on the edge of his most inefficient vote-buying binge yet. As the runoff race for Georgia’s Senate seat enters its final weeks, the Biden administration may rubberstamp a nationwide handout to snare a handful of Peach State ballots....

read more
NATO Doesn’t Supersede the U.S. Constitution

NATO Doesn’t Supersede the U.S. Constitution

As our government continues to bumble and stumble at full speed towards World War III, the concept of tripwires and the legal authority of Article 5 become required understanding for the vigilant citizen. Last week the American people received the then-breaking news...

read more
Search for Easy Money Fueled FTX-Crypto Collapse

Search for Easy Money Fueled FTX-Crypto Collapse

The collapse of the crypto exchange FTX may prove to be a canary in the coal mine of the easy-money-fueled crypto bubbles. FTX’s collapse has exposed just how little due diligence is actually taking place among investors, who are apparently willing to put large...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This