The United States and much of the world locked down their countries as the pandemic spread. So-called experts claimed this was to “slow the spread” of the virus. As time went on, we saw the devastating impact these lockdowns had on our society. Many wondered if all this was necessary. Now, a Nobel Laureate is pulling the wool off the world’s eyes.
Only now, as we near June, is most of the country reopening. Some states started in late April, while others are only starting now. Some governors have speculated keeping schools closed into the next school year. Economists are predicting a 20% unemployment rate next month—as businesses slowly get back to work. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, who once called the economic damage “inconvenient,” is saying we have to reopen.
Aside from the economic fallout, the lockdowns had devastating consequences to millions of Americans. Important milestones were ruined. Academic and athletic careers were abruptly halted. There were countless unexpected medical consequences. And the mental and emotion toll all this has had on us will not be truly felt until years from now.
But… it was all worth it, right, to “slow the spread”? I doubt anyone really believes that by now. And Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt is condemning the lockdowns.
A Nobel Prize winning scientist, who correctly predicted in the early days of the pandemic that the initial models were overestimating how bad the outbreak would be, said over the weekend that he believes that the lockdown may end up costing more lives than it saved, and that the economic devastation from the lockdown will outweigh the lives that were lost…
“I think lockdown saved no lives,” Levitt said, adding that social distancing measures, hygiene, and wearing masks should have been sufficient. “I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives – things like that – but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.”
“I think that the real virus was the panic virus,” Levitt continued. “For reasons that were not clear to me, I think the leaders panicked and the people panicked and I think there was a huge lack of discussion.” [Source: Daily Wire]
Levitt was one of few experts who questioned the bogus Imperial College model—that claimed 2 million Americans would have died. It was this model that forced many countries (including the U.S.) to enact horrible lockdown policies. The head of that modelling team, Neil Ferguson, was later forced to resign after he was caught breaking his own lockdown rules to go sleep with another man’s wife.
Levitt is pointing out what many have been saying for months. That the lockdowns had far reaching consequences much worse than the virus itself. He said they only saved lives by preventing “a few road accidents.” Other than that, they did nothing to confront COVID-19.
Only now are states doing the right thing: confronting the virus in nursing homes and places where it can spread quickly among the most vulnerable. For months, the entire population was shut in, even as date proved this was the wrong thing to do.
States that quickly worked to reopen were slandered by the media—even though they (to date) have significantly fewer deaths than other states. Liberal run states that stayed locked down longer have several times more deaths. Hmm… I wonder why?
Levitt explains the abuse brought on by these lockdowns will be felt for much longer than COVID-19. The cost to our society will be far worse than this short-lived disease.
The only question we need to now ask is… why? Why were our leader so quick to doom our futures over bad modelling and fear? Why was our society so willing to give up its freedoms, in the name of “flattening the curve”?
And why are some states still pathetically clinging to lockdowns, when we know for a fact they don’t work?