On Friday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki about a recent meta study from Johns Hopkins, which suggested that lockdowns only appeared to reduce “COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the U.S. and Europe.”
“Lockdowns during the first wave of COVID in the spring of 2020, found that it only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the U.S. and Europe, and suggested that they have little to no public health benefit, but severe consequences for the economy — and it suggests that lockdowns shouldn’t be a part of a future pandemic response,” the reporter said before following up with a question: “Is that the shared view of the administration looking in the rearview mirror?”
Psaki responded, first refusing to comment on the “specifics” of this study — pointing to “our health and medical experts” for that. She then stated that the president isn’t “pushing lockdowns.”
“…we’ve not been pro-lockdown. That has not been his agenda,” Psaki said. “Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president.”
The press secretary continued, issuing talking points regarding the number of Americans vaccinated and the percentage of schools open.
The reporter followed up, asking: “So, you guys do believe then that the lockdowns were more harmful than helpful?”
Psaki dodged, pointing once again to “our scientific experts,” and claiming that the president doesn’t favor lockdowns.
But the president’s agenda, the president’s approach has not been lockdowns. It has been using the tools we have to prevent that.
TRANSCRIPT:
REPORTER: And then real quick on the Johns Hopkins study on the lockdowns. It was this meta-analysis that came out of several studies, lockdowns during the first wave of COVID in the spring of 2020, found that it only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the U.S. and Europe, and suggested that they have little to no public health benefit, but severe consequences for the economy. And it suggests that lockdowns shouldn’t be a part of a future pandemic response. Is that the shared view of the administration looking in the rearview mirror?
PSAKI: Well, I would say — I would, sort of, first, of course, point to our health and medical experts for specifics on this [specific] — scientific study.
I would note that the president has been clear we’re not pushing lockdowns; we’ve not been pro-lockdown. That has not been his agenda. Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president.
What our objective has been is to — conveying that we have the tools we need to keep our country open, thanks to the president’s leadership, and focus on fighting the virus. And that’s reflected in the fact that 98 percent of schools are open, over 210 million Americans are fully-vaccinated. We have the tools to avoid lockdowns, and we’re not moving back. And that’s our intention at this point.
REPORTER: So, you guys do believe then that the lockdowns were more harmful than helpful?
PSAKI: Again, I would point you to our scientific experts on the specifics of a study. But the president’s agenda, the president’s approach has not been lockdowns. It has been using the tools we have to prevent that.