FEE Daily Newsletter
fee.org
Analyst Philippe Lemoine originally advocated for lockdowns to stop the spread of COVID-19. Now, he says he was wrong—and that lockdowns would fail any honest cost-benefit analysis.
“A year ago I publicly advocated lockdowns because they seemed prudent given how little was known at the time about the virus and its effects,” Lemoine writes in a new Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. “We have since learned that the virus never spreads exponentially for very long, even without stringent restrictions.”
His data analysis undermined his prior assumptions because its findings were so clear.
“I’ve looked at more than 100 regions and countries,” Lemoine writes. “None have seen exponential growth of the pandemic continue until herd immunity was reached, regardless of whether a government lockdown or other stringent measure was imposed.”
He explains that areas that eschewed lockdowns, like Georgia and Sweden, have avoided some of the grave economic and social consequences, yet their COVID outcomes are statistically no worse than their similarly situated peers.
“The coronavirus lockdowns constitute the most extensive attacks on individual freedom in the West since World War II,” Lemoine concludes.
“Yet not a single government has published a cost-benefit analysis to justify lockdown policies—perhaps because officials know what it would show.”
Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.
