# Johns Hopkins study says lockdowns did more harm than good



## CarolfromTX (Feb 3, 2022)

https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-...ed-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths

It will be interesting to see how some folks will try to disparage Johns Hopkins, a preeminent health care organization. This study cannot be easily dismissed as “misinformation.”


----------



## win231 (Feb 3, 2022)

It's interesting that so many people didn't think: "Hmmmm, the most hospitalizations, infections & deaths  were reported during lockdowns."
Much like the mask & vaccination campaigns.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 3, 2022)

And by the way, no mention of this study on the websites of the MSM.


----------



## Becky1951 (Feb 3, 2022)

Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?

The emotional damage should be included also.

Families separated. 

Children basically treated like yo-yo's, in school learning this week, oops virtual learning next week, OK, in school learning, nope, sorry, virtual learning.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 3, 2022)

Think of all the missed cancer screenings, cancelled elective surgeries like hip replacements, and lost jobs..As I said, more harm than anything else.  It did, however, increase the power of some politicians.


----------



## Pepper (Feb 3, 2022)

Johns Hopkins is among a few premier medical centers in the U.S.


----------



## Rah-Rah (Feb 3, 2022)

I agree with this totally and never really fully understood the long lock downs. Not only for the business sense of it, but also the sense of being cooped up in a space for a period of time taking its toll on people which it most definitely did. I have and will always stand for people using there own minds to deal with this pandemic as to going out shopping with a mask or if they feel they want to attend a big gathering during a holiday or a concert with or without a mask. It comes down to a decision that should be left up to the said individual. I have said this many times already in many of these types of threads. People are entitled to make there own decisions as with those decisions they also must be willing to deal with whatever consequences come their way. This must not be left up to others to decide for them.


----------



## Shero (Feb 3, 2022)

Although I have great respect for John Hopkins, not every study that emerges is worthy of deep consideration.

1. John Hopkins did not even put out a press release about this study. The University did *not* publicize the findings. Why?

2. Because it has *not* been peer-reviewed. Let alone published!!

3. These researchers deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health !

4. An Economics professor knows nothing about epidemiology or virology.

John Hopkins is very much in order not to support these findings.
.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 3, 2022)

Tsk. That silly Johns Hopkins. I mean, what do they know?  Ah, Shero, you are so predictable.


----------



## Shero (Feb 3, 2022)

CarolfromTX said:


> Tsk. That silly Johns Hopkins. I mean, what do they know?  Ah, Shero, you are so predictable.



Yes, I am very predictable.
Because before I accept anything and everything thrown at me (like a sensible person should), I investigate, I do my own research and then I open my mouth.
.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 3, 2022)

And you still get it wrong.


----------



## Rah-Rah (Feb 3, 2022)

I agree Johns Hopkins is known for there medical research and even though I expect the Economics Department is top notch it is not what Johns Hopkins is known for. I live in the area of Johns Hopkins and have a husband who was lucky enough to do Residency there so we are fully aware of the accomplishments in the Medical field that they have and that is why they are one of the top Medical hospitals and Universities around. 

It is true Economics researchers will focus on one side of the issue which is what they really are experts in reporting on and that is all fine, but honestly does that give the full picture no it does not. It gives a focused report which I personally feel is true and factual , but I also think there is more to the full story.


----------



## Nathan (Feb 3, 2022)

Shero said:


> Yes, I am very predictable.
> Because before I accept anything and everything thrown at me (like a sensible person should), I investigate, I do my own research and then I open my mouth.
> .


Yes, you have a solid basis on which to build a coherent view.  Sadly, there are many people that don't practice critical thinking.


----------



## Shero (Feb 3, 2022)

CarolfromTX said:


> And you still get it wrong.



Such childish behavior is most unbecoming Carol 
.


----------



## Shero (Feb 3, 2022)

Nathan said:


> Yes, you have a solid basis on which to build a coherent view.  Sadly, there are many people that don't practice critical thinking.



Thank you Nathan. May I say, it is also the view of the University.
.


----------



## Alligatorob (Feb 3, 2022)

CarolfromTX said:


> Johns Hopkins study says lockdowns did more harm than good


Thanks for this Carol, it is a very interesting study, and I believe its findings will likely hold up with time.

However the Hopkins study did not conclude that the "_lockdowns did more harm than good_".  This is what the news story says, but if you read the study it appears to be a misleading headline written by a reporter, not by the study's authors.

What it looks to me like they found was that government mandated lockdowns were only marginally better than not.  Here is a telling finding from the report:

"_...people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates. So, we believe that Allen (2021) is right, when he concludes, “The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.”_"

Note the way they used the term "lockdown" was limited to government mandated lockdowns, it did not include advisories or recommendations or other forms.  They also included government mandated masking in their definition of lockdown.

So they conclude that lockdowns dictated by governments did not help much.  And a possible reason for this that they point out is people were already doing a lot of these things without government mandates.


----------



## rgp (Feb 4, 2022)

Becky1951 said:


> Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?
> 
> The emotional damage should be included also.
> 
> ...



 Just yesterday a report on the news saying that the learning level/education level of the nations kids dropped during the lockdown. Mostly due to the fact that so many of them [kids] did not do the lessons available on line . The report said thousands didn't even log-on.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Feb 4, 2022)

In hindsight, I think that the lockdowns, stimulus payments, disruptions to education, etc... did not have nearly as great a benefit as was originally thought.

IMO it all comes down to a case of _*damned if you do and damned if you don't*_. 

It's interesting that the simplest public health measures seemed to provide the most benefit at the least cost.

I suppose that there could be a lesson in there somewhere.


----------



## win231 (Feb 4, 2022)

Shero said:


> Although I have great respect for John Hopkins, not every study that emerges is worthy of deep consideration.
> 
> 1. John Hopkins did not even put out a press release about this study. The University did *not* publicize the findings. Why?
> 
> ...


A study that doesn't fit your narrative is not worthy of deep consideration.


----------



## Rah-Rah (Feb 4, 2022)

rgp said:


> Just yesterday a report on the news saying that the learning level/education level of the nations kids dropped during the lockdown. Mostly due to the fact that so many of them [kids] did not do the lessons available on line . The report said thousands didn't even log-on.


I agree that in person learning is the way students should be taught and the most beneficial way for them to learn. One of the main problems with the online learning was parents did not have either the know how or the time to follow up with there kids on what they were doing. Also if the kids did not log on they should have been reported as absent from school because from what I was told about online schooling each day log in the students reported to a certain teacher to report they were there for the day.


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Feb 4, 2022)

Shero said:


> An Economics professor knows nothing about epidemiology or virology.


From the horse's mouth...


> While it is true that epidemiologists and researchers in natural sciences should, in principle, know much more about COVID-19 and how it spreads than social scientists, social scientists are, in principle, experts in evaluating the effect of various policy interventions.


Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.


> Peer-reviewed vs. working papers: We distinguish between peer-reviewed studies and working papers as we consider peer-reviewed studies generally being of higher quality than working papers.


As has happened so many times... working papers are published to be peer reviewed, but are considered as fact, by whichever party deeming it beneficial to their cause.

This working paper is more about timing of shutdowns upon mortality rates, or were the barn doors shut after the horses escaped?



> Today, it remains an open question as to whether lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on COVID-19 mortality. We address this question by evaluating the current academic literature on the relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 mortality rates. We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above.


And finally...


> We only include studies that attempt to establish a relationship (or lack thereof) between lockdown policies and COVID-19 mortality or excess mortality.
> We exclude studies that use cases, hospitalizations, or other measures


Of course there is picking and choosing which tidbits to publish in the media, but I leave you with this one tidbit from the working paper... to sip on.


> There is some evidence that business closures reduce COVID-19 mortality, but the variation in estimates is large and the effect seems related to closing bars


----------



## suds00 (Feb 4, 2022)

the study does not address the medical issues driving the pandemic .lockdowns are instituted to stop the spread of disease. there are bound to be economic and\or social consequences. stopping the pandemic is important. if it's not stopped there won't be economic and social issues to be concerned with .it's a balancing act


----------



## Judycat (Feb 4, 2022)

There were lockdowns because in the beginning the medical community was scared s***less.  Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 5, 2022)

Judycat said:


> There were lockdowns because in the beginning the medical community was scared s***less.  Hindsight is 20/20.


Of course. But when it clearly didn’t work the first time, they did it again in some states.  And again. Because it became more about compliance than about the disease.


----------



## win231 (Feb 5, 2022)

Lockdowns were used to coerce people into getting vaccines.  
_"Get vaccinated, or else we'll have more lockdowns."
"Get vaccinated so we can get back to normal."_


----------



## suds00 (Feb 5, 2022)

lockdowns are sop when dealing with diseases that are transmitted .they are not used to coerce people into getting the vaccine.


----------



## win231 (Feb 5, 2022)

suds00 said:


> lockdowns are sop when dealing with diseases that are transmitted .they are not used to coerce people into getting the vaccine.


Really?  We've had many other transmittable diseases.  I've been here 69 years & never experienced any lockdown.


----------



## suds00 (Feb 6, 2022)

people have been quarantined for infectious diseases for years .lockdowns are effective tools to stop the spread of disease. i've been here 72 years and see the benefits of lockdowns. we don't want viruses to run rampant through the populace.


----------



## win231 (Feb 6, 2022)

suds00 said:


> people have been quarantined for infectious diseases for years .lockdowns are effective tools to stop the spread of disease. i've been here 72 years and see the benefits of lockdowns. we don't want viruses to run rampant through the populace.


Lockdowns didn't help during Covid; more cases were reported during the lockdown than after it.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 6, 2022)

win231 said:


> Lockdowns didn't help during Covid; more cases were reported during the lockdown than after it.


The US didn't have true lockdowns.  Parts of China absolutely did.  Same with at least parts of Italy.  Some other countries, too.  I'm talking law enforcement on the corners stopping people from walking their dogs type lockdowns. 

But the US? Not hardly. We were "lockdown light" even at our strictest, and many states didn't follow those guidelines. Never were Americans restricted from walking our neighborhoods, driving anywhere we chose, going to stores that sold food (convenience stores included) or medicine, and pretty quickly we were able to get take-out food and beverages (including alcohol).

Domestic air travel continued, though few took advantage. Large gatherings were supposed to stop, but many areas didn't follow those guidelines (Sturgis and the Ozarks come immediately to mind).

A fairer look at how well lockdowns work against virus spread and mortality rates would have included Italy and China, where actual lockdowns occurred.  Also AU and NZ, where their borders were locked down against those who might have brought it in.  

Before anyone jumps on me, please understand I'm not suggesting it would have been appropriate or workable for the US to have gone into serious lockdown mode.  I'm merely pointing out that we did not.


----------



## helenbacque (Feb 6, 2022)

I question this because there is no way to know how many deaths would have occurred without a lockdown.  Cannot prove a negative.  It's merely an opinion.  To me the biggest loss that may never be corrected is that of a good foundation for education that many elementary school children will not have.


----------



## Shero (Feb 6, 2022)

Harry Le Hermit said:


> From the horse's mouth...
> 
> Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.
> 
> ...





Harry Le Hermit said:


> From the horse's mouth...
> 
> Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.
> 
> ...


Hermit,  I am sorry, no offence, but I do not understand your post.
Maybe one succinct paragraph? Thank you.
.


----------



## Shero (Feb 6, 2022)

StarSong said:


> The US didn't have true lockdowns.  Parts of China absolutely did.  Same with at least parts of Italy.  Some other countries, too.  I'm talking law enforcement on the corners stopping people from walking their dogs type lockdowns.
> 
> But the US? Not hardly. We were "lockdown light" even at our strictest, and many states didn't follow those guidelines. Never were Americans restricted from walking our neighborhoods, driving anywhere we chose, going to stores that sold food (convenience stores included) or medicine, and pretty quickly we were able to get take-out food and beverages (including alcohol).
> 
> ...


 ,,,and Australia and NZ still have closed borders.
Good post StarSong!


----------



## Don M. (Feb 6, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Before anyone jumps on me, please understand I'm not suggesting it would have been appropriate or workable for the US to have gone into serious lockdown mode.  I'm merely pointing out that we did not.



I, too, haven't seen any evidence of a "lockdown" here, in the middle of the country.  Earlier in this pandemic, there were a lot of stores that required a mask for entry, but that has been pretty well relaxed since a major share of our locals have been vaccinated.  Perhaps the Most disruptive local result of this virus has been the erratic operations of the schools....parents often don't know from week to week what their kids will be having to do.  

But, then, we live in a rural area, where there are virtually No crowds of people gathered together.  Earlier in this pandemic, there were some restrictions in the larger cities....but nothing approaching the lockdowns reported in other nations.  

Probably the closest we have had to a "lockdown" is the mandatory wearing of a mask at the casino.


----------



## Alligatorob (Feb 6, 2022)

helenbacque said:


> I question this because there is no way to know how many deaths would have occurred without a lockdown.


If you read the full study, not the news story, you will see they were pretty careful to compare death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns to places that did not.

The main conclusion was that the government mandates did not seem to make much difference.  They suggest that was at least in part to the voluntary actions people were taking without government requirements.  

A somewhat limited conclusion, but not one that surprises me.  People protect themselves because they want to stay safe and not get sick.  Government mandates are only a secondary driver.


----------



## helenbacque (Feb 7, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> If you read the full study, not the news story, you will see they were pretty careful to compare death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns to places that did not.
> 
> The main conclusion was that the government mandates did not seem to make much difference.  They suggest that was at least in part to the voluntary actions people were taking without government requirements.
> 
> A somewhat limited conclusion, but not one that surprises me.  People protect themselves because they want to stay safe and not get sick.  Government mandates are only a secondary driver.


We shall have to agree to disagree.  There is no provable point  for something that *did not* happen.   It is someone's educated guess, nothing more.  Guesses spoken as fact are misleading.


----------



## Alligatorob (Feb 7, 2022)

helenbacque said:


> We shall have to agree to disagree. There is no provable point for something that *did not* happen. It is someone's educated guess, nothing more. Guesses spoken as fact are misleading.


What the study shows is that statistically there is very little difference in reported Covid death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns as compared to places that didn't.  Lots of good data to support that conclusion, not a guess. 

The guessing was with respect to the reasons for it, and the authors offered some opinions as to what it means with respect to public policy.   If they reduce this to something subject to peer review I suspect those opinions would have to come out. 

I think the authors were mostly careful in what they said.  Its a long read 60+ pages, but its all there.  I would skip the news article originally cited summarizing the study.  

Here is a link to the full study:  

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf


----------



## suds00 (Feb 7, 2022)

i read some of the report and still question some of the findings.in totalitarian countries where lockdowns were mandated there was significant amount of disease but less disease than the united states where lockdowns were not as strictly enforced. what would the disease level be if lockdowns were haphazardly adhered to?.it is an interesting study. regarding the question of whether the school of economics should be releasing a study re. a medical issue, the authors note that they are social scientists and state that they are as qualified to make these findings as medically-trained scientists because of their rigorous attention to the findings.


----------



## Shero (Feb 7, 2022)

suds00 said:


> i read some of the report and still question some of the findings.in totalitarian countries where lockdowns were mandated there was significant amount of disease but less disease than the united states where lockdowns were not as strictly enforced. what would the disease level be if lockdowns were haphazardly adhered to?.it is an interesting study. regarding the question of whether the school of economics should be releasing a study re. a medical issue, the authors note that they are social scientists and state that they are as qualified to make these findings as medically-trained scientists because of their rigorous attention to the findings.



Social scientist is just a fancy name for someone who studied econmics. Nothing to do with medical science, so therefore their findings would only be important post covid.


----------



## Lanny (Mar 22, 2022)

CarolfromTX said:


> Think of all the missed cancer screenings, cancelled elective surgeries like hip replacements, and lost jobs..As I said, more harm than anything else.  It did, however, increase the power of some politicians.


and wiped out countless small businesses, concentrating economic power at the top.


----------



## Alligatorob (Mar 22, 2022)

CarolfromTX said:


> Think of all the missed cancer screenings, cancelled elective surgeries like hip replacements, and lost jobs..As I said, more harm than anything else. It did, however, increase the power of some politicians.





Lanny said:


> and wiped out countless small businesses, concentrating economic power at the top.


These are quite valid points, however there were some benefits as well.  

It is truly unfortunate that we did not have a reasoned and open discussion of costs and benefits back when all this started.  I know we did not have all the information then that we do now, but we had enough to layout the choices regarding lockdowns and related restrictions much more clearly than it was. 

If we had done that I think policy decisions would have been more rational and consistent.  I believe that would have lead to broader public acceptance and cooperation.   Not perfect, but better...


----------



## chic (Mar 22, 2022)

win231 said:


> Lockdowns were used to coerce people into getting vaccines.
> _"Get vaccinated, or else we'll have more lockdowns."
> "Get vaccinated so we can get back to normal."_


It was all control and coercion from the start.


----------



## Ladybj (Mar 22, 2022)

win231 said:


> Lockdowns were used to coerce people into getting vaccines.
> _"Get vaccinated, or else we'll have more lockdowns."
> "Get vaccinated so we can get back to normal."_


I agree.  Several people may disagree but we are back to normal as normal can be.


----------



## Packerjohn (Mar 23, 2022)

Becky1951 said:


> Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?
> 
> The emotional damage should be included also.
> 
> ...


Yes, in Canada, suicides were up, consumption of alcoholic drinks up, spouse abuse up, pornography on internet up, isolation of people up, illegal drug use up.  Makes a country "boy" like me just scratch my head!


----------



## Bellbird (Mar 23, 2022)

If saving 1000's of people from dying and contracting virus  then lockdown didn't work, !!
 It certainly worked in New Zealand we had some of the strictest conditions in the world, and even I am not in favour of our present government, I totally support them this time.
  By what I have seen and read many countries 'played' with lockdown  and wearing masks,  it was done half heartedy and certainly caused 1000 upon 1000 suffering and deaths. 
   By what is happening now when masks are not worn, another outbreak occurs. There's plenty of proof about that.


----------



## RFW (Mar 23, 2022)

In other news, water is wet.


----------



## Tish (Mar 23, 2022)

It totally destroyed our economy and our Tourist industry.
However, I believe we are on our way back.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Mar 23, 2022)

Bellbird said:


> If saving 1000's of people from dying and contracting virus  then lockdown didn't work, !!
> It certainly worked in New Zealand we had some of the strictest conditions in the world, and even I am not in favour of our present government, I totally support them this time.
> By what I have seen and read many countries 'played' with lockdown  and wearing masks,  it was done half heartedy and certainly caused 1000 upon 1000 suffering and deaths.
> By what is happening now when masks are not worn, another outbreak occurs. There's plenty of proof about that.


Kudos to New Zealand! I just took another look at the COVID-19 world meter. Seems that comparing NZ to other first world countries, you guys had the least fatalities (184).


----------



## SeniorBen (Mar 24, 2022)

Here's an article about the study:
https://www.newsweek.com/did-johns-...ckdowns-dont-work-what-we-know-so-far-1676724


----------



## Sunny (Mar 24, 2022)

So, if there is a madman armed with lethal weapons, running around the streets shooting people at random, it is just silly to tell people to take shelter in their homes or schools?

That is what Covid is, Shero.


CarolfromTX said:


> https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-...ed-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths
> 
> It will be interesting to see how some folks will try to disparage Johns Hopkins, a preeminent health care organization. This study cannot be easily dismissed as “misinformation.”


That convinces me!  From now on, I will take my health guidance from a publication called Health News Florida which is prominently asking for donations right there on their first page.  Glad you pointed this out.  Johns Hopkins is a fake, pretend medical school, hospital, and research facility, which is spreading lies.  Let's all get our health guidance from Health News Florida instead.


----------



## StarSong (Mar 24, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Here's an article about the study:
> https://www.newsweek.com/did-johns-...ckdowns-dont-work-what-we-know-so-far-1676724


Thanks for that link.  Looks like most of the scientific world is taking issue with this study's methodology and conclusions.  
From the Newsweek article:

"The paper is yet to undergo peer-review and has not been shared or promoted by JHU, with the author noting in the document that "_views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with_."'

"_Fortune_ magazine described the authors as "free marketers." It has yet to be peer-reviewed, and it has received criticism on several fronts from the scientific community."


----------



## win231 (Mar 24, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Thanks for that link.  Looks like most of the scientific world is taking issue with this study's methodology and conclusions.
> From the Newsweek article:
> 
> "The paper is yet to undergo peer-review and has not been shared or promoted by JHU, with the author noting in the document that "_views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with_."'
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me that the study received criticism from the scientific community.  That's where the foolish suggestions came from.


----------



## SeniorBen (Mar 24, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Thanks for that link.  Looks like most of the scientific world is taking issue with this study's methodology and conclusions.
> From the Newsweek article:
> 
> "The paper is yet to undergo peer-review and has not been shared or promoted by JHU, with the author noting in the document that "_views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with_."'
> ...


Yep, here is a little background on the authors...

Described as a Johns Hopkins study, the report was in reality published online by the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, an academic enterprise tightly linked to the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. The institute is separate from the famed medical institution and school of public health affiliated with the university. It is co-directed by one of the authors of the new report, economist Steve Hanke, who also directs the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute.

The other two authors of the report are Scandinavian economists Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung. Herby advises the Center for Political Studies, in Copenhagen, a self-described “independent, liberal, free-market think tank in Denmark” that strongly opposes coronavirus lockdown policies across the Nordic region and is generally anti-regulation. He is also tied to the American Institute for Economic Research, where he has written in favor of the Swedish government’s very loose pandemic policies in 2020 that resulted, by the end of the summer of that year, in death rates more than five times higher than in neighboring Denmark, over 9 times greater than in Finland, and more than 11 times worse than the toll in Norway. Herby wrote that Sweden’s huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many “dry tinder” vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who “burned up” with coronavirus infections.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/08/economists-are-fueling-the-war-against-public-health/


----------



## StarSong (Mar 25, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Herby wrote that Sweden’s huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many “dry tinder” vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who “burned up” with coronavirus infections.


No doubt the loved ones of those "dry tinder" folks take issue with Herby's perspective.  His underlying message seems to be that they were overstaying their earthly welcome.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 25, 2022)

Hey, Win, you may have not noticed, because you're so busy trolling this forum, but things ARE very much closer to normal than they were even a few months ago. My building has a bulletin board in the lobby with events, notices, etc. posted on it. For the last 2 years, it's been practically empty, except to keep warning people to wear masks, wash their hands, etc.

Today I walked past it and saw a happy group of people reading all the notices. I don't remember all the events being planned, but some were a movie (tonight), a performance of Pippin in a local theater, a book club meeting, a singles group game night, a box for donations of clothing for newborns in our neighborhood, a fellow running for county executive giving a talk about goods that are manufactured in the area, and a schedule of an exercise group.  Happy Hour (BYOB) every two weeks has returned, also the Koffee Klatch every two weeks in the morning. And there were lots more; as I said, too many to remember.

None of these events require masks. Some people wear them anyway. (I usually don't.)

Our own theater group is resuming live performances, and I will be accompanying some of the singers, as I play the piano. Really looking forward to that!

Just take the blinders off your eyes and look around you...  and enjoy the relative normality we've returned to. Not perfect yet, but thanks to vaccines, masks, and social distancing, life is now a whole lot better. And we are alive.


----------

