Massive Majority in New Hampshire Support Authoritarian Government and Willing to Believe Anything Government/Press Tell Them

This from the latest UNH poll:

Nine in ten Granite Staters approve of the job Governor Chris Sununu has done handling the coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. A similarly large majority support Sununu’s “stay at home” order for the state. Granite Staters say maintaining the stay at home order is more important than re-opening the NH economy by a two-to-one margin. Majorities of Granite Staters believe that state beaches, gyms, and churches should be closed during the stay at home order …

There is no science supporting lockdowns. Instead, what we are seeing as we gather more data is that there is no difference in outcomes between States that imposed lockdowns … such as New Hampshire … and States that imposed much more modest measures. For example, from Wilfred Reilly:

As a professional political scientist, I have analysed data from the Worldometers Coronavirus project, along with information about the population, population density, median income, median age and diversity of each US state, to determine whether states that have adopted lockdowns or ‘shelter in place’ orders experience fewer Covid-19 cases and deaths than those which pursue a social-distancing strategy without a formal lockdown. I then briefly extend this analysis to compare countries. In short, I do not find that lockdowns are a more effective way of handling coronavirus than well-done social-distancing measures.

(The more modest measures were social-distancing restrictions such as banning large gatherings and mandating six-foot spacing gaps and maximum customer limits inside all retail stores.)

There is also the example of Sweden:

Its neighbors closed borders, schools, bars and businesses as the coronavirus pandemic swept through Europe, but Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible.

The strategy — aimed at allowing some exposure to the virus in order to build immunity among the general population while protecting high-risk groups like the elderly — has been controversial. Some health experts liken it to playing Russian roulette with public health.

But now, the country’s chief epidemiologist said the strategy appears to be working and that “herd immunity” could be reached in the capital Stockholm in a matter of weeks.

Yet in New Hampshire, a massive majority of the State apparently mistakenly believe that lockdowns are the only way to protect ourselves from Coronavirus. They also appear to mistakenly believe that you can catch COVID by merely getting within six feet of another person. They also appear to be unaware that COVID is ONLY dangerous to the elderly and those already suffering from a serious medical issue. I think this is the result of regularly being misinformed by the Governor’s daily Coronavirus briefings and the complicity of the press.

The Governor regularly tells us that the lockdown has “flattened the curve.” This simply is NOT true. The IMHE model always assumed a lockdown. The model’s projections for hospitalizations and deaths were vastly revised downward because the model was horribly flawed and, frankly, bore no resemblance to reality.

And as noted above, there is no difference in outcomes between States that “locked down” and States that imposed more modest measures.

And virtually all of the deaths reported as Coronavirus deaths by DHHS involve people over 60 years old, many of whom had preexisting medical issues, and a majority of whom were institutionalized.

Yet the press never challenges Sununu’s claim that the lockdown “flattened the curve”. Nor does the press ever push Sununu on why healthy people need to “stay at home” when COVID is only dangerous to the elderly and those already infirm. Nor does the press ever put the deaths reported as Coronavirus deaths in context by comparing them to opioid deaths or flu deaths or traffic fatalities.

There is no pushback from the Democrats the nominal opposition Party, either … presumably because the Democrats have been able to achieve one of their prized policy objectives – no excuse absentee voting – and because they are happy to see the economy wrecked because they believe it will damage Trump politically and prevent his reelection.

A massive majority of the State are also apparently unaware that the Governor has moved the goalposts. The original justification for locking down the economy was the belief … based on the models … that our hospitals were going to be quickly overwhelmed with COVID patients. It quickly became apparent that the projections were wrong and the “peak” kept getting pushed out two weeks, then another two weeks. When it became apparent that the hospitals were NEVER going to be overwhelmed, the goalposts were shifted to preventing Coronavirus altogether.

This new goal is nonsensical because you would have to keep everyone locked down until a vaccine is developed, which could be years or never. Yet no pushback from the press.

Just or perhaps more appalling than how apparently misinformed the vast majority of the State are about Coronavirus is how comfortable the vast majority of the State are with authoritarian government.

Your desire to live in a Corona-virus-risk-free world does NOT does not give you the power to suspend my constitutional rights. In other words, even if you believe all the misinformation being peddled about Coronavirus, under what authority do you get to indefinitely suspend my constitutional rights … to tell me I cannot operate a business that you deem “non-essential” … to tell me how many people I can have in my home at one time … indeed, to tell me under what circumstances I am allowed to leave my home at all?

The implications are stark for the relative handful of us who oppose the lockdown. If … as appears to be the case … the vast majority of the State have no problem with an authoritarian government that produces the results they want, it is only a matter of time before New Hampshire becomes -at best- Massachusetts -or perhaps more likely- New Jersey or New York.