Evidence from numerous studies prove lockdowns do not control the coronavirus

I previously wrote about how there is a lack of evidence supporting the current restrictions on businesses. Despite this, reports suggest Governor Walz might extend these restrictions. According to the Pioneer Press,

While there is good evidence the speed of Minnesota’s coronavirus outbreak is slowing, Walz and health officials are waiting to see if those trends hold before making any changes to the state’s coronavirus response.

“I am as sick of this — COVID-19 — as anybody in the state,” Walz said. “But we cannot give up. I cannot do the easy thing. I have to do the thing that makes a difference.”

……

Walz emphasized that he believed the restrictions were working to prevent infections and save lives, even though cases are also dropping in surrounding states with fewer or no restrictions.

“The idea that if we didn’t do anything we would end up in the same spot anyway is simply not proven out around the world,” he said.

But that is exactly what the evidence has proven so far. Lockdown restrictions, despite the heavy costs they are imposing on businesses, do not appear to significantly curb COVID-19 spread or protect the most vulnerable.

What the evidence shows

One study that compares U.S. states based on the stringency of lockdowns and its results is that of Adam McCann, which found no clear relationship between the stringency of COVID-19 restrictions and death rates. For instance, Minnesota has imposed some of the strictest COVID-19 lockdown rules, but also has a high death rate. However, the study found a strong positive relationship between the stringency of restrictions and the unemployment rate.

AIER also summarized evidence from 24 papers, indicating the lockdowns have not worked as intended in slowing down the virus.

So, if Governor Walz extends current restrictions after the holidays, he will only be doing so for the sake of appearing to do something.