Believe the Science: Lockdowns and Masks Don’t Work

While the economic destruction from coronavirus lockdowns has been well documented, the evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns in changing the trajectory of the virus is virtually non-existent. This data is undeniable, and cannot be refuted by the scare tactics of politicians and government-funded scientists. Yet Colorado continues to suffer through the tyranny of fools who perpetuate the pandemic myth for their own ends.

In study after study, we see government-forced lockdowns having no effect, yet compliant citizens continue to look the other way as fundamental freedoms are violated on a mass scale based on the perpetuation of a verifiably false reality.

For instance, the peer-reviewed weekly journal The Lancet published a study in July that analyzed data from 50 countries and found no decrease in mortality associated with lockdowns, and instead found what common sense would tell us: smoking, obesity, and life expectancy were primarily associated with an increase in morbidity. The study concluded:

…government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.

Similarly, researchers published a study in Frontiers in Public Health examining data from 180 countries for the first eight months of the coronavirus response, looking for the correlation between public health, demographics, government policy, economy, and environment with coronavirus mortality. Researchers found no connection between the stringency of mitigation measures and the death rate from the virus. Instead, they found (again, in line with common sense), that the virus severity was linked to general health and immune system strength. To quote the study’s conclusion:

This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions.

University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government tracked a range of government stringency measures across Europe, and the results were written about in a May Bloomberg article by Elaine He, who concluded that:

There’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.

The de facto understanding for reporting on the issue continues to be that mitigations avoid lockdowns – as if somehow lockdowns are required when a certain amount of spread is discovered. This inverse relationship was forced into public consciousness early and became the assumption that drove everything we observed. Only now are some in the media beginning to challenge this presumption with the possibility that no level of physical mitigation changed anything once the virus broke containment in Wuhan.