Stats Hold a Surprise: Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread

 Stats Hold a Surprise: Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/stats-hold-a-surprise-lockdowns-may-have-had-little-effect-on-covid-19-spread/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202020-10-04&utm_term=WIR-Smart

Excerpt:  Governors in different states responded to the COVID-19 pandemic at different times and in different ways. Some states, such as California, ordered sweeping shutdowns. Others, such as Florida, took a more targeted approach. Still others, such as South Dakota, dispensed information but had no lockdowns at all. As a result, we can now compare outcomes in different states, to test the question no one wants to ask: Did the lockdowns make a difference? If lockdowns really altered the course of this pandemic, then coronavirus case counts should have clearly dropped whenever and wherever lockdowns took place. The effect should have been obvious, though with a time lag. It takes time for new coronavirus infections to be officially counted, so we would expect the numbers to plummet as soon as the waiting time was over. (...) To judge from the evidence, the answer is clear: Mandated lockdowns had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus. (...) 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. [The 13 graphs look surprisingly similar. Maybe we shot ourselves in the foot while trying to kill a mouse. Ron P.]