This past Friday at a White House press conference, one reporter questioned White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki concerning the recent meta-study results that were released from Johns Hopkins, which seems to imply that the COVID-19 lockdowns only ended up reducing “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,” stated the reporter directly before jumping in with a question: “Is that the shared view of the administration looking in the rearview mirror?”
Psaki answered with a refusal to comment on any “specifics” of this study, going on to state she was leaning on “out health and medical experts” for that. She then went on to state that Old Uncle Joe has not been advocating for and “pushing lockdowns.”
“…we’ve not been pro-lockdown. That has not been his agenda,” claimed Psaki. “Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president.”
It was then that Psaki continued on, trying to swap topics to the number of Americans vaccinated and the percentage of American schools that were now open.
Just as quickly, the reporter followed up, asking: “So, you guys do believe then that the lockdowns were more harmful than helpful?”
Psaki once again refused to answer the question and tried to dodge out by one again pointing to “out scientific experts” for answers before making the claim that the president is not pro-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.
The post WATCH: Jen Psaki Scrambles To Find Reason To Not Answer A Reporters Question appeared first on Steadfast and Loyal.
Source by [author_name]
