As virus cases rise, more states are imposing limits on business activity and daily life.
But recent studies suggest lockdowns may not be the silver bullet we hoped they would be.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is among the governors opposed to a second lockdown.
Paul, who has a medical degree himself, called the lockdowns arbitrary.
He said they’re not based on any kind of science.
And some recent studies seem to agree.
An analysis published in medical journal The Lancet concluded that mass lockdowns and other preventive measures were not associated with the number of reported virus deaths.
And a study published by the medical platform medRxiv—which publishes papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet—says self-isolating at home didn’t seem to impact the pandemic. That paper compared countries that imposed lockdowns to their neighbors that didn’t. It suggests that no lives were saved with this strategy.
While there are differing opinions on whether lockdowns work, there’s no denying the economy took a hit.
Joel Griffith, research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said: “We saw that more than 20 million people are put out of work, and many businesses that went under this was a time of incredible economic stress and also stress for society in general, as people were forced to isolate from their communities.”
In a CDC study, physical distancing and stay-at-home orders were found to have increased symptoms of anxiety and depression in the United States considerably in spring this year.
The CDC also calculated that the chance for people over 65 years old to die of the virus is 90 to 630 times higher compared to people in their 20s.
Griffith said targeted care for vulnerable populations could allow the economy to function while addressing the virus’s spread.
