Shutdown foes buoyed by study showing 'no clear significant' benefit to lockdowns
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and other lockdown critics have been accused for months of ignoring the science on the novel coronavirus, but a recently released study by Stanford University researchers is providing an empirical boost to those who want to shut down the shutdowns.
A peer-reviewed article in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation found “no clear significant beneficial effect” from stay-at-home orders and business closures in eight nations, including the United States, versus voluntary measures adopted by South Korea and Sweden.
Published Jan. 5, the article offers what may be the strongest scientific challenge yet to more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs, prompting cheers from policymakers calling for the reopening of schools, restaurants, bars and gyms.“
Put simply, lockdowns DON’T work,” the Republican Ms. Noem tweeted with a link to the study. “See for yourself.”
Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, touted the research in a Friday blast, saying “the ‘experts’ and wannabe dictators, aka governors, were wrong, wrong, wrong and now they demand more bailouts.”
No comments:
Post a Comment