Lockdowns don’t work and other commentary


From the left: Lockdowns Didn’t Work

There’s been “little critical analysis from the mainstream left” on whether or not COVID restrictions “served the collective good — or saved lives for that matter,” note Thomas Fazi and Toby Green at UnHerd. Some “countries that locked down the hardest are also those with the highest mortality figures and excess death rate.” For instance, Michigan favored “severe restrictions while Wisconsin lifted them much earlier” — but Michigan’s COVID mortality price is way larger than next-door Wisconsin’s. Everyone confronted the “psychological, social and economic” prices — which embrace decrease life expectations amongst the younger because of “impacts on other aspects of medical care,” although COVID “was almost exclusively a threat to the elderly.”

Progressive: The Agony of Breaking Ranks

At Politico, progressive Rebecca Bodenheimer relates her shock on the “social repercussions” and “political identity crisis” that “becoming a school-reopening advocate” triggered. “People across the political spectrum” grew “frustrated” with Democrats’ positions on reopenings — solely to be known as “Trump supporters,” white supremacists or “Karens.” Never thoughts that “schools across the country (in red states) opened” with out main outbreaks. When distant studying failed her son, Bodenheimer reluctantly sought to get him into a personal college: “Prioritizing being a ‘good leftist’ at the expense of my son’s well-being wasn’t good parenting, but . . . the white guilt dies hard.” Now the talk has her in “an ideological midlife crisis, questioning all my prior political assumptions.”

Olympic desk: Beijing Games a ‘Moral Disaster’

The “Olympics in Beijing appear set to be a moral disaster, raising the question of whether Americans can watch the events in good conscience,” declares National Review’s Jim Geraghty. China’s regime and the International Olympic Committee “have effectively placed a giant bet. They know you’re going to hear about the ongoing crimes of the Chinese government. They’re betting that you won’t care.” They assume “you’ll get so swept up in the habitual biennial excitement that you shrug off the fact that the government hosting the games has at least a million people in concentration camps and is forcibly sterilizing ethnic and religious minorities.” Best root for “our favorite American athletes” however watch “no more than we feel is necessary and hope these games generate lower-than-usual ratings, reflecting our inability to fully cheer these ‘Genocide Games.’ ”

Politics 101: Joe’s Latest Bungle

The president’s “big voting rights push has got off to an inauspicious start,” snarks Spectator World’s Oliver Wiseman, as Stacey Abrams and other “prominent voting-rights advocates” declined to point out. He’s “paying for the insincerity of his voting rights rhetoric. If you adopt alarmist language on the rules that govern how America votes — describing red-state laws as Jim Crow on steroids and wondering whether democracy will survive unless your party is in control of Congress and the White House — you cannot complain when those who believe you think you aren’t acting with enough urgency.” And at the least 5 Dem senators aren’t on board together with his demand to sideline the filibuster. Once once more, his “push is heavy on overhyped rhetoric and light on a strategy to actually pass the bills.”

Conservative: Biden’s Shameful Lies in Georgia

“President Joe Biden’s speech in Atlanta on Tuesday was much more about suppression of the truth than it was about suppression of the vote,” thunders the Washington Examiner’s Quin Hillyer. “Mr. ‘Unify the Country’ Biden continued his party’s viciously and deliberately mendacious attempts” to “ascribe nefarious and imaginary motives to Republicans, equating GOP officials with virulent racists and insurrectionists.” Rather than clarify why he opposes voter-ID necessities, Biden simply labeled them “akin to Jim Crow.” And “to achieve his weak-on-fraud ends, Biden advocates doing away with the Senate filibuster that he insisted for decades was an essential safeguard for constitutional governance.” In all, “this divisive, dishonest hack of a president is covering himself with ignominy, pushing desperately to rig the rules in his party’s favor.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Comments are closed.