Wow, Even NPR Admits That In-Person Voting Isn’t as Risky as Alarmists Thought; New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly, and Other C-Virus Updates

Wow, Even NPR Admits That In-Person Voting Isn’t as Risky as Alarmists Thought:

The Democratic National Convention heavily promoted the conspiracy theory that President Trump is dismantling or undermining the postal service in an attempt to suppress the vote or undermine the presidential election in November. Democrats clearly don’t want in-person voting in November, despite the high risk of fraud with mail-in voting.

While Democrats are trying to make people afraid to vote in person, the experts are saying it can be done safely. And Joe Biden says that, unlike Trump, he’d listen to the experts. Well, Dr. Fauci has insisted that in-person voting can be done safely. “I think if carefully done, according to the guidelines, there’s no reason that I can see why that would not be the case,” Dr. Fauci told National Geographic.

Fellow White House Coronavirus Task Force Member Dr. Deborah Birx also agrees. “If you go into Starbucks in the middle of Texas and Alabama and Mississippi that have very high case rates, then I can’t say that it would be different waiting in line at the polls,” she said.

Even the notoriously liberal National Public Radio (NPR) seems to be admitting that in-person voting isn’t as risky as Democrats are suggesting, having reported this week that “new research suggests in-person voting may be less risky than many fear.” —>READ MORE HERE

New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly:

Blanket business shutdowns—which the U.S. never tried before this pandemic—led to a deep recession. Economists and health experts say there may be a better way.

In response to the novel and deadly coronavirus, many governments deployed draconian tactics never used in modern times: severe and broad restrictions on daily activity that helped send the world into its deepest peacetime slump since the Great Depression.

The equivalent of 400 million jobs have been lost world-wide, 13 million in the U.S. alone. Global output is on track to fall 5% this year, far worse than during the financial crisis, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Despite this steep price, few policy makers felt they had a choice, seeing the economic crisis as a side effect of the health crisis. They ordered nonessential businesses closed and told people to stay home, all without the extensive analysis of benefits and risks that usually precedes a new medical treatment.

There wasn’t time to gather that sort of evidence: Faced with a poorly understood and rapidly spreading pathogen, they prioritized saving lives.

Five months later, the evidence suggests lockdowns were an overly blunt and economically costly tool. They are politically difficult to keep in place for long enough to stamp out the virus. The evidence also points to alternative strategies that could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost. As cases flare up throughout the U.S., some experts are urging policy makers to pursue these more targeted restrictions and interventions rather than another crippling round of lockdowns.

“We’re on the cusp of an economic catastrophe,” said James Stock, a Harvard University economist who, with Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina and others, is modeling how to avoid a surge in deaths without a deeply damaging lockdown. “We can avoid the worst of that catastrophe by being disciplined,” Mr. Stock said. —>READ MORE HERE

Follow links below to related stories and resources:

Nurse treating COVID-19 patients tells RNC that Trump saved thousands of lives

USA TODAY: Coronavirus Updates

WSJ: Coronavirus Live Updates

YAHOO NEWS: Coronavirus Live Updates

NEW YORK POST: Coronavirus The Latest

Source