According to the exponentially-increasing insurmountable evidence:
Stats Hold a Surprise: Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread
To judge from the evidence, the answer is clear: Mandated lockdowns had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus. The charts below show the daily case curves for the United States as a whole and for thirteen U.S. states. As in almost every country, we consistently see a steep climb as the virus spreads, followed by a transition (marked by the gray circles) to a flatter curve. At some point, the curves always slope downward, though this wasn’t obvious for all states until the summer.
The lockdowns can’t be the cause of these transitions. In the first place, the transition happened even in places without lockdown orders (see Iowa and Arkansas). And where there were lockdowns, the transitions tended to occur well before the lockdowns could have had any serious effect. The only possible exceptions are California, which on March 19 became the first state to officially lock down, and Connecticut, which followed four days later.
Even in these places, though, the downward transitions probably started before the lockdowns could have altered the curves. The reason is that a one-day turnaround for COVID-19 test results probably wasn’t met in either state. On March 30, the Los Angeles Times reported the turnaround time to be eight days. That would make the delay from infection to confirmation not the 10 we assumed, but more like 17 days (6 for symptoms to appear, 3 for them to develop, and 8 for test processing). In early April, the Hartford Courant reported similar problems with delayed test results in Connecticut.
What’s more, there’s no decisive drop on the dates when lockdowns should have changed the course of the curves. Instead, the curves gradually bend downward for reasons that predate the lockdowns, with no clear changes ten days later.
Lockdown partisans might say that the curves would have been higher after the ten-day mark without the lockdown. While we can’t redo history to prove them wrong, the point is that the sudden and dramatic changes we should see if they were right aren’t there. If we showed people these curves without any markings, they would not be able to discern when or even if lockdowns went into effect.
The evidence suggests, then, that the sweeping, mandated lockdowns that followed voluntary responses exacted a great cost, with little effect on transmission. We can’t change the past, but we should avoid making the same mistake again.
Who could have ever predicted that outcome?
Lockdowns, just like all of our other efforts to stop the cold virus, are pointless.
The lockdown should have never occurred. Thus, the bailout was never needed. With neither of those two, fear should have never been so common place. With no fear comes no mask mandates to soothe the psychologically weak. With no mask mandates comes no societal-crushing domino effect leading to the zoo we are now living in. It’s all a catalyst.
We may not be able to change the past. But this is an excellent lesson for the future:
- Don’t trust the “experts“.
- Don’t blindly buy into fear mongering.
- Remember that mass civil disobedience is stronger than any local mandate.
- And for the love of god, don’t mandate face diapers on every citizen for a virus with a fatality ratio of 0.0002 for everyone under 50.