Nothing in the article caused me to change my opinion about the lockdowns. The first one was supposed to be a temporary stop gap measure to buy some time while they worked on a permanent solution. Like Uncle Ken said, the numbers generally declined while the lockdowns were in force, and shot back up again after they were lifted. Is he then saying that the permanent solution is to keep the lockdowns on forever? Like I said last summer, you can't shut the economy down forever. If we didn't need an economy in the modern world in which we live, then they never would have invented one in the first place.
Furthermore, Queen Gretchen locked down some things in Michigan that didn't need to be locked down, like golf courses, outdoor construction jobs, and motorboats. She even decreed that people who owned second homes could not travel to them, including out of state owners over which she has no legitimate jurisdiction. The predictable legal backlash caused her to back off these restrictions one by one. While never acknowledging the lawsuits, she asserted that the reason she was backing off was that the numbers were coming down. I was closely monitoring the numbers in those days, and they did not begin to decline until after Her Majesty started easing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment