Lockdown Proponents Should Have the Burden of Proof

Seven weeks after the President recommended that Americans shelter in place and states issued lockdown orders to combat the Covid-19 virus, the process of reopening has begun in some parts of the country.   But in several states, including Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and California governors are moving slowly, insisting that science shows that many businesses and parks should remain closed and healthy people should continue to stay home and avoid others.  Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald has this piece in The Hill suggesting that the science is not clear that the lockdown has worked and that the consequences of sheltering in place may be worse than the disease.

“Some doctors estimate that the closure of hospitals to non-coronavirus cases and the reluctance of patients to burden 911 have increased mortality as much as the virus.”  Yet she notes that “[t]he rhetoric of lockdown proponents is growing more apocalyptic…. even as the data keep reinforcing the case against universal shutdown.”  Democrat politicians, the public health establishment, and the major media, all of whom support the lockdown, insist that the burden of proof for ending it belongs to the opponents.  That metric prevents the following questions from being answered:

“*  What have the lockdowns accomplished so far and what will they accomplish in the future?

*   What are the public health consequences of a global depression?

*   Do the benefits of keeping from working outweigh the costs in lost and stunted lives?

*   How will herd immunity be achieved under lockdown conditions?”