• Tag Archives COVID
  • New Study Provides Yet More Evidence That COVID Lockdowns Didn’t Work

    Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, even alarmist government officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci have admitted that it’s time to learn to live with the virus rather than disrupt our ordinary lives. In recent months, there has been a concentrated shift among our elected officials and expert class attempting to “move on” from the pandemic—perhaps because the policy decisions they made have aged so terribly. 

    Yet another comprehensive study was just released showing that the drastic lockdowns (“stay-at-home orders”) enacted in many US states did not meaningfully reduce COVID-19 mortality. Economists Casey P. Mulligan, Stephen Moore, and Phil Kerpen ran the numbers to rank all 50 states on COVID mortality, economic performance, and pandemic education outcomes (based on how much they were able to keep schools open). 

    The results show that despite their drastic, sometimes-lethal second-order consequences, government lockdowns did not meaningfully reduce COVID-19 mortality.

    “Excluding the geographically unusual cases of Hawaii and Alaska to focus on the continental U.S., there is no apparent relationship between reduced economic activity during the pandemic and our composite mortality measure,” the authors conclude. 

    While one can find outliers in either direction, the data for the individual states analyzed in this paper support this general conclusion.

    Florida, for example, was much-maligned for its hands-off approach to the pandemic. 

    “Florida Man Leads His State to the Morgue,” a New Republic headline blared.

    “How did Florida get so badly hit by Covid-19?” asked the BBC. 

    “Ron DeSantis Plays Disaster Politics as Florida Again Reels From Coronavirus,” thundered US News.

    Yet as the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted, Florida ranked 6th overall, 3rd for educational outcomes, 13th for economic outcomes, and 26th—pretty middle-of-the-pack—for COVID mortality. (Despite having a disproportionately elderly population!)

    California, meanwhile, ranked 40th for its economic outcomes and 50th for education outcomes because it so heavily restricted its economy and kept its schools closed for so long. However, it ranked 27th for COVID mortality, marginally worse than Florida despite all the lockdown damage California inflicted on itself. 

    New York and New Jersey fared similarly dismally. 

    There were some states, like Hawaii, where drastic lockdowns did correspond with excellent COVID-19-related outcomes. However, they were exceptions to the norm, and can often be explained by other factors. (Like Hawaii being, you know, a series of islands). 

    This is hardly the first study to reach the conclusion that lockdowns didn’t work. 

    Consider, for example, a comprehensive literature review examining relevant studies published by Johns Hopkins University in February. It found that despite their drastic costs, “lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

    Why? Well, other research also found that the most COVID spread occurred, paradoxically, at home. (Making “stay-at-home” orders tragically counterproductive). 

    But the real reason lockdowns failed is much more fundamental. Lockdowns failed because they were rooted in extreme hubris, a deadly arrogance from policymakers who believed that if they simply wielded enough concentrated power they could stop the spread of an uber-contagious virus. They decided to play God, and that decision proved disastrous. 

    The Greek philosopher Socrates once said that “True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.” 

    Lockdown politicians should have heeded this ancient advice. Because, as yet another study just showed, their arrogance imposed drastic costs on citizens while failing to achieve better results. 


    Brad Polumbo

    Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Mask Mandate Advocates Championed ‘Science’ and ‘Experts’ — Until They Didn’t

    For most of the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing a mask, especially indoors, was the official guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, on May 13, the CDC announced that vaccinated people — whether they be indoors or outdoors — no longer have to wear masks except under special circumstances.

    While this was cause for celebration in most parts of the country, Democratic politicians in various states and cities have decided to leave their mask mandates unchanged — even for those who have been vaccinated. Reason reported that Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are among those who made that decision.

    Lightfoot justified her decision by saying, “People need to continue to follow the public health guidance that has gotten us this far, and masks are a big and important part of that.” Gov. Murphy tweeted that New Jersey’s mask mandate remains in place because many people in his state are still not vaccinated. Gov. Newsom said that he did not change mask policy in his state because he was unsure how to deal with kids in schools or businesses that want to keep requiring them.

    Whatever the merits of mask mandates when they were first implemented, they have clearly overstayed their welcome. Now that the CDC has new guidance, to keep mask mandates in place would be to go against their initial justification: namely, that research and expert authorities suggested that we must have them.

    At this point, the science is clear: once people are vaccinated, they are essentially immune from COVID-19. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that vaccines had a 97 percent efficacy at stopping symptomatic cases of COVID-19 and an 86 percent efficacy at stopping asymptomatic cases of COVID-19.

    A CDC study showed that the risk of COVID-19 infection was reduced by 90 percent after being fully vaccinated, and another CDC study showed that even for older people — those most at risk from COVID-19 — the vaccine is 94 percent effective at preventing hospitalization.

    After all of this research came out, the last viable pro-mask-mandate talking point was that there are variants out there, and there is simply too much uncertainty about them to lift mask mandates. But, a study on the variants showed that Pfizer’s vaccine was 89.5 percent effective against the UK variant and 75 percent effective against the South African variant.

    Even with this new science, it has been argued by people such as Gov. Murphy in New Jersey that there are still people who are unvaccinated, and therefore we cannot lift the mandates just yet.

    The truth is that for those who are unvaccinated, nobody is preventing them from continuing to wear a mask or taking extra safety precautions. In fact, they are still being encouraged to take those measures. And, it is also true among vaccinated people that if they would like to ensure an extra level of safety, then it is 100 percent their prerogative to wear a mask as well.

    But the converse must also be true. For those people who are unvaccinated and make — in my view — the ill-advised decision not to wear a mask indoors, that is a risk they are freely taking on. And, for those who are vaccinated, there is absolutely no reason to impose mask-wearing in indoor and outdoor settings alike because studies tell us that they are essentially immune from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated.

    We are at a point where it is more clear than ever that each person can make an individual choice, based on their own situation, whether or not they want to wear a mask. Some people will be more cautious than others, and that is okay.

    At the start of the pandemic, many Americans looked to the government for guidance on how to best protect themselves, and deferred to their recommendations. However, times of crisis have always been a pretext for the expansion of government and limitations on liberty for exactly that reason: it is easy to justify at the beginning of that crisis.

    However, regaining those liberties on the back-end of a crisis is hard. When government officials act in their self-interest — as one would expect them to do — it invariably means not only expanding and maintaining their own power, but also continually trying to impose their preferred version of the world onto others.

    In F.A. Hayek’s book, Law, Legislation and Liberty, he wrote:

    “‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist.”

    That politicians are justifying continued mask mandates even after the recommendation from the CDC has changed is a clear example of what Hayek was talking about. They are stubbornly trying to maintain the state of emergency to cling to the power and importance it gives them.

    Embracing individual choice and liberty now makes more sense than ever because we are on the last stretch of the pandemic and more and more people are not only gaining access to vaccinations but also actually being vaccinated every day. It is past time that our government policies start to reflect that.


    Jack Elbaum

    Jack Elbaum is a Hazlitt Writing Fellow at FEE and an incoming sophomore at George Washington University. His writing has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The New York Post, and the Washington Examiner. You can contact him at jackelbaum16@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @Jack_Elbaum.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • CDC: Schools With Mask Mandates Didn’t See Statistically Significant Different Rates of COVID Transmission From Schools With Optional Policies

    The ACLU on Tuesday announced it is bringing a lawsuit against South Carolina over its mask policy.

    The Palmetto State is one of seven states—along with Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, and Florida— that have policies in place banning schools from having mask policies. Thirteen states, meanwhile, have laws that mandate masks in schools. The majority of states (30) allow school districts to determine their own mask policies.

    “We’re suing to end South Carolina’s ban on mask requirements in schools, with Disability Rights South Carolina, Able South Carolina, and parents,” the ACLU said. “Students with disabilities are effectively being excluded from public schools because of this ban. Courts must intervene.”

    The ACLU’s action is the latest salvo in a battle over a question that divides America: should schools be able to compel children to wear face coverings in school?

    With fall approaching, many Americans are wondering whether they should send their children to school with a mask—or if they’ll even have a choice.

    A recent New York magazine article states that the science on masks “remains uncertain,” but noted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in May published a large-scale study of COVID transmission in US schools.

    The study, which analyzed some 90,000 elementary students in 169 Georgia schools from November 16 to December 11, found that there was no statistically significant difference in schools that required students to wear masks compared to schools where masks were optional.

    “The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional,” the CDC said. “This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements.”

    As New York magazine’s David Zweig noted, these findings, as well as other statistically insignificant preventive measures, “cast doubt on the impact of many of the most common mitigation measures in American schools.”

    The CDC’s findings on masks and other preventive measures would not be particularly noteworthy or controversial outside the US. As New York magazine noted, many European nations have exempted students from mask mandates—including the UK, all of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and even France and Italy—though with varying age cutoffs. The results have not been dire.

    “Conspicuously, there’s no evidence of more outbreaks in schools in those countries relative to schools in the U.S., where the solid majority of kids wore masks for an entire academic year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future,” wrote Zweig. “These countries, along with the World Health Organization, whose child-masking guidance differs substantially from the CDC’s recommendations, have explicitly recognized that the decision to mask students carries with it potential academic and social harms for children and may lack a clear benefit.”

    These findings in the US, however, are another matter.

    Masks have been one of the most polarizing issues in the country during the pandemic, perhaps because US policy has whipsawed back and forth. Americans remain bitterly divided on the issue. There have been careers ruined, messy retractions, and endorsements lost.

    In particular, the CDC’s findings are not helpful to politicians and bureaucrats who continue to argue that students must be masked during school.

    “Whether [students] are vaccinated or not, they need to wear a mask,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said during a recent panel discussion streamed online.

    For this reason or some other, the CDC determined to not include its finding that “required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional” in the summary of its report, which has received very little media attention to date.

    Meanwhile, the mask wars are heating up.

    The Biden Administration recently directed Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to employ “all of his oversight authorities and legal actions” against governors preventing schools from passing mask mandates. Cardona acted swiftly.

    “These states are needlessly placing students, families, and educators at risk,” the Education Secretary wrote in a public letter. “Yet in each of these states, there are also educators and others who are taking steps to protect the health and safety of their school communities.”

    The CDC’s findings are hardly the only research on the issue of masks and COVID transmission, and the study will not be the final word—in large part because masks are too politically divisive to allow either side to “win.” The question is why.

    The economist Ludwig von Mises noted many years ago that a great deal of modern social conflict stems from a struggle over who gets to design the world, public authorities or individuals. Masks are no different. By removing this decision from the individual, public health officials turned masks into a political conflict.

    Masks are no longer simply a matter of individual or public health. Bear in mind, children face a low risk of falling sick or being hospitalized with COVID—with or without a face mask. Small children are far more likely to die of the flu, a car accident, a swimming pool, cancer or some other ailment than COVID-19, CDC data show. The battle of school masks mandates has now become a political conflict, part of a larger struggle between the individual and collectivism.

    “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter,” Ayn Rand once observed. “Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ‘the common good.’”

    In modern America, the common good now means using any means necessary to coerce individuals to get vaccinated and wear masks—including government coercion and public shame in various forms. The health of the collective—both literal and figurative—demands it.

    This is unhealthy, some say, and potentially dangerous.

    Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies infectious diseases, recently observed that the way we’re treating the spread of COVID-19 is unique compared to other pandemics throughout human history.

    “For thousands of years, disease pathogens have spread from person to person. Never before have carriers been blamed for infecting the next sick person,” Kulldorff noted on Twitter. “That is a very dangerous ideology.”

    Indeed it is.

    Whether masks promote health is unclear—many Europeans without mask mandates have far lower COVID mortality rates than the US. What is far more certain—in light of the lessons of history—is that a healthy society is one that empowers individuals with choice and freedom.

    Jon Miltimore


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

    Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.