Per-capita Covid fatalities were 75% lower in open states.
There is no science that shows that NOT social distancing is effective or that NOT wearing masks is effective in keeping the virus from spreading. It's common sense, definitely and specifically not brain surgery or rocket science.Epidemiologists agree, even if economists, business owners, stockholders, psychiatrists or whomever else is unqualified on the science -- politicians, or just your rocket science neighbor -- would wish something else to be true, and feel they can behave carelessly in a false call for liberty, contrive a false argument otherwise, or get published this year with a false self-serving exposé. The idea, then, is that if you are to open a state, then you must have guidelines. This saves lives in the community from dangerous minglers, and keeps neighboring communities and states from sickness and death from travellers. Texas is dealing with opening too early or too much right now, so is considering re-instituting son=me or a lot of the social distancing "lockdown" measures. Hence, what we already all know, opening with not enough "lockdown" is kills people or just makes them really sick and permanently disabled.Therefore, when you have an anamoly in someone's research conclusion, or at least an anamoly brought out in the phrasing of the conclusion or in a headline reporting it (and I do not have access to the entire article, which is written for the benefit of Wall Street) -- as if not keeping social distance works -- when this happens you must look for the actual explanations.Just brainstorming -- Coastal states got walloped first with the virus. The middle of the country, such as Arizona, is just getting walloped now. So, it is premature to issue a statement that not locking down worked to contain the virus in AZ as in TX.There is also the learning curve, that the later states benefited from. Normal people, using well-formed brains, seeing what has worked elsewhere and seeing what has been deadly dopey behavior, adjusting behavior accordingly when the pandemic of the virus arrives -- save lives. They save lives without "lockdown" measure, their own and their neighbors'. We know that when a bar, church or beach has carelessly opened, paying no attention to lessons learned, no matter where this has happened, superspreaders who are careless, shed the virus to others -- whether they thought it was a hoax or not. The brainless virus relies upon foolish people -- or those of us with a subconscious death wish.Word is coming out that if you can show that someone shed the virus to you by being careless, you may sue. This would apply mainly or obviously to someone who has been placed on quarantine, violating that quarantine, resulting in infecting others. Such quarantine is a true "lockdown. We'll see if there any cases come, or, even further, murder charges -- like when someone knowingly spreads HIV/AIDS. This latter social contraint to "lockdown" has not been given much media attention, so does not come under the socio-psycholgical effects that "lockdown" has on the citizens of a given state.In some cities, a $300 fine was put in place if you were not wearing a mask, putting others at risk of sickness and death, in public. This was effective -- and not often invoked. If you are on quarantine, like Mary & I are, we are subject to lawsuit and larger fines. Does this change our behavior? No. A word to the wise is sufficient. Many others are not wise -- or not consistently wise.It is also premature to look at figures in another way. The politics and economics of the pandemic, puts pressure to keep death figures low. This is betrayed by excess deaths, but also in the stats otherwise. For instance, nursing home deaths are attributed to a full 25% of all deaths from the virus. If you live in a state where the percentage of nursing home deaths is significantly higher than that, then that is how significantly wrong either the death count is in that state, or just how poorly they are run.