DEVASTATING "Lockdowns" in the United States (US) report by Rancourt & Johnson: "Lockdowns Did Not Save Lives", find that the regulatory imposition and enforcement of statewide shelter-in-place...
by Paul Alexander
or stay-at-home orders conclusively correlates with larger health-status-corrected, per capita, all-cause mortality by state; LOCKDOWNS were associated with increased DEATH across America during COVID
Before you read about the lockdowns, I must again state that these COVID gene injections that have been shown to be ineffective and harmful, MUST be stopped for everyone! None in children! The mRNA gene platform injection was and is very harmful, devastating. Something is not right with it and the vaccine makers did not conduct the studies for the proper duration so as to exclude harms. The FDA failed us. All of these people must be investigated and jailed if we show deliberate or reckless wrong! Too many have died as a result. Start with Fauci, Francis Collins, Bourla, and Bancel.
This updated study adds to the near 500 studies and evidence I have gathered in the Brownstone review showing that lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates all failed, no evidence of any utility or benefit, in fact, only harms. I am updated the review with this new Rancourt study,
SOURCE;
SOURCE:
Evaluating the Effect of Lockdowns On All-Cause Mortality During the COVID Era: Lockdowns Did Not Save Lives, Rancourt & Johnson, 2022
“The USA and its 50 state jurisdictions provide a natural experiment to test whether excess all-cause deaths can be directly attributed to implementing the social and economic structural large-scale changes induced by ordering general-population lockdowns. Ten states had no lockdown impositions and there are 38 pairs of lockdown/non-lockdown states that share a land border. We find that the regulatory imposition and enforcement of statewide shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders conclusively correlates with larger health-status-corrected, per capita, all-cause mortality by state. This result is inconsistent with the hypothesis that lockdowns saved lives.”
As demonstrated by other investigators (for example Rancourt, Baudin & Mercier 2021), ACM sidesteps the difficult issue of cause-of-death assignation, which is political in nature, and as a result susceptible to bias (e.g. Ealy et al. 2020). The correct dominant cause of death is rarely known in the case of respiratory illnesses, and the death is normally not monocausal. The advantage of analyzing ACM is that deaths in the US are recorded with high fidelity (no reporting bias or underreporting). Once recorded, a death is a death, regardless of how the cause is assigned on the death certificate. If lockdowns are effective in preventing deaths due to the spread of a disease during a pandemic, then regions that implemented lockdowns should have experienced fewer per capita deaths from all causes, if there are no overriding confounding factors.’
If lockdowns saved lives, then we would expect that most of the ACM ratios (R) would be less than one. Instead, we see the opposite. For all three integration periods, the majority of ratios are larger than one.
Figure 6 shows that most of our ten non-lockdown states have health-status-corrected integrated all-cause mortality in the 15-week cp1 on the pre-COVID (2018 and 2019) baseline value of approximately 14 per 10,000, whereas most of the states with lockdown stringency scores of 2 and 3 have mortality rates well above the pre-COVID baseline value
