21 in '21, Alas

Not only did "18 in '18" (i.e. lowering the drinking age to 18 in 2018) NOT become a reality, but worse, the federal smoking age is now 21 in 2021 (and in fact in 2020 too).  And not only did Trump turn out to be unfriendly to our movement, but our new President Biden has also had a history of opposing lowering the drinking age to 18 and also supporting the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs as well.  So we really have our work cut out for us, with our battle being more uphill than anytime since the 1980s.

And while cannabis legalization fortunately looks like it is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and will most likely increase further going forward, unfortunately here too the age limit is unlikely to drop below 21 anytime soon either in the USA.

While these may seem like low-priority issues in the time of COVID-19, they are nonetheless the essence of our movement.  No one is truly free when others are oppressed, and indeed the stage was set long ago for today's oppressive lockdowns and restrictions by earlier illiberal policies including, but not limited to, the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.

So what are we waiting for?  Let's roll!

A Long Overdue Idea Whose Time Has Come: Vitamin-Enriched Alcohol

With the pathophysiology of the dreaded COVID-19 (including Long COVID) now looking increasingly linked to nutritional deficiencies, including but not limited to thiamine (Vitamin B1), all while America is drowning in the bottom of a bottle, it underscores a fortiori the urgency of adding vitamins to alcoholic beverages.  Various foods are fortified with thiamine and other nutrients, but not alcohol despite it being one of the lowest-hanging fruit ways to prevent such a deficiency resulting in beriberi, "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome), and likely a good chunk of what is being labeled as COVID-19 today.

(Of note, thiamine is, along with intravenous Vitamin C and a corticosteroid, in fact a key component of the time-tested MATH+ protocol for hospitalized patients from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.  That combination was most likely inspired by a much older, pre-COVID protocol known as HAT therapy, often used for sepsis and septic shock.)

Americans seem to think that thiamine deficiency was eradicated long ago, but the truth is that it still exists to this very day, and not trivially either.  The average American in fact eats and drinks lots of thiamine blockers/depletors or anti-nutrients, such as sugar, refined carbohydrates, coffee, tea, some OTC and prescription drugs, and, of course, alcohol.  Especially now during the pandemic under varying degrees of panic, quarantine, isolation, and lockdown, with all the stress, anxiety, boredom, and gnawing loneliness they create.  Lack of sunlight exposure from staying indoors also adds Vitamin D deficiency to this mix.  And this ubiquitous "anxiety/isolation/vitamin deprivation syndrome", as vitamin guru Bill Sardi would call it, only worsens actual viral infections and can even in the absence of the virus cause "pseudo-infections" with rather similar symptoms as COVID, that can fool even the very best of physicians.

This is not the first time that beriberi, "the great masquerader", was confused with a viral infection, and certainly is not the first time it (and other nutritional deficiencies) increased susceptibility to and exacerbated an actual one either.  But if we really wanted to, we could ensure that it will be the last.

And the saddest thing about this situation is that (unlike a wild virus which is largely out of our control, despite illusions to the contrary) such vitamin deficiency is easily 100% preventable, yet it is still occurring due to politics and lack of empathy.

Thus, one of the lowest-hanging fruit measures to improve public health is to fortify alcoholic beverages with thiamine (Vitamin B1) and perhaps other vitamins known to be depleted by alcohol such as niacin (B3) and folate (B9).  This can be done very easily through targeted tax incentives for alcohol manufacturers to add such vitamins to their products.  Anti-alcohol advocates of course may not be the biggest fans of such an idea, since they lobbied against it back in the late 1970s when the idea was first floated.  (They tend to reflexively dislike and oppose anything that makes alcohol look even remotely good or healthy.)  But since they were strange bedfellows with the alcohol industry on this issue, it follows that using tax incentives to sweeten the deal for the industry, combined with some good old-fashioned ridicule for the opposition, would effectively triangulate the dry lobby's silly and paternalistic opposition to such a promising (and rather libertarian) public health measure.

Fortifying coffee, tea, and soft drinks with such B vitamins should also be next, and also joining Canada and the Nordic countries by fortifying various staple foods like flour and bread with Vitamin D as well. 

So what are we waiting for?  Let's dust off and put this 40+ year old idea to good use, yesterday!

ADDENDUM: TB or not TB? That is the question, since a good chunk of what is being labeled as COVID may actually be tuberculosis, and that was in fact suspected back in March if not earlier.  A highly contagious, airborne, nasty, and deadly bacterial lung infection, TB can quite easily be confused with an influenza or coronavirus infection, and millions of Americans are thought to have latent (dormant) TB right now (and before the pandemic), just waiting to be reactivated by nutritional deficiencies and the stress/isolation of lockdown.  Interestingly, the BCG vaccine against TB also seems to work well against COVID as well.  And the good news is that Vitamin D, along with Vitamin C, thiamine, and niacin, can apparently block that disease as well.

Have A Safe And Happy Holiday Season

(This is a public service announcement)

It is that time of year again when the holidays are upon us, and many of us Americans (and around the world) will be celebrating with alcohol and/or other substances, even if they are doing it rather differently this year for obvious reasons.  We at Twenty-One Debunked would like to remind everyone to be safe and celebrate responsibly.  There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period.  We cannot stress this enough.  It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive.  It's really not rocket science, folks.  And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two.  Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to.  Or stay home and celebrate there.  Or simply don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.  Seriously, don't be stupid about it!  And the same goes for other psychoactive substances as well, and a fortiori when combined with alcohol.

ARRIVE ALIVE, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!   If you plan to drink, don't forget to think!  The life you save may very well be your own.

The Logical Conclusion Of Social Host Liability Laws

We at Twenty-One Debunked have a long history of opposing the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age and all of its ancillary laws, especially social host liability laws where hosts are liable for any harm that guests cause after leaving the premises after consuming alcohol, DUI or otherwise.  We have always considered such laws to be an affront to personal liberty and especially its flip side, personal responsibility, and also believe that such laws have a chilling effect on social interactions and community in general.  Even if these laws briefly had some merit at one time, that train has long since left the station.

And now, just like we predicted but did not say out loud for fear of giving the authoritarians any ideas, some mainstream news outlets are claiming that, in Canada of all places, the same logic can be applied to hosts whose guests inadvertently contract COVID on their premises.  Of course, the legal basis for this assertion is flimsy at best, never been tested, and it is practically impossible to prove who gave such a widespread virus to whom.  But alas the Overton window has a way of shifting unexpectedly, as we have learned repeatedly, and new precedents can be conjured out of thin air at least for a time.  

And clearly the authors of this idea seem to be inspired by social host liability for alcohol, as they mention such laws almost in the same breath as well.  They should really be careful what they wish for!  Especially in our notoriously overly litigious society, much more than Canada.  What next, how about if the guest goes on to infect someone who infects someone who infects someone who dies and/or (in the USA) gets a six or seven figure hospital bill?  How many degrees of separation before the host is no longer liable?  What about the flu or other infections?  Slopes are indeed much slipperier than they appear.

Such nascent precedents must absolutely be rejected and nipped in the bud before they begin, lest there be a permanent chilling effect on social interaction well beyond the end of the pandemic, with massive collateral damage.  The end of socialization portends the end of civilization, after all.  And any judge who enforces them needs to be removed from the bench at once, forever.  (At the very, very least!)

Interestingly, even for alcohol, the only two countries that have social host liability are the USA and Canada.  Even countries that have more of a "brother's keeper" and communitarian ethic simply do not have such laws or precedents.  One could argue that the USA in particular needs such laws to keep our hyper-individualism in check, but that is a circular argument and begging the question.  Kinda like, you know, the 21 drinking age itself.

The Cruise Ship Solution For Herd Immunity

Or, "How To Turn Super-Spreaders into Super-Resistors"

It's a bit late in the game, but as they say, hindsight is 2020, pun intended.  

What if way back in March 2020, instead of imposing destructive and counterproductive lockdowns and mass quarantines, and grounding all cruise ships, we instead eschewed lockdowns, kept everything open, and actually offered totally FREE cruises (food and alcohol included) to anyone between the ages of 18-24 and perhaps even 25-34 year olds as well (but no one else) with no serious underlying conditions?  And if we also had the drinking age (and smoking/toking ages) on those cruises be set at 18 instead of 21?

Those are, of course, the age groups who are among the least likely to suffer severe illness or die from COVID-19, yet due to their high level of social connectedness (and of course partying) they are the most likely to spread it to others.  Giving them the chance to voluntarily take themselves "out of circulation" at sea for just a few months from the general population and far away from older and more vulnerable people (who are up to hundreds of times more likely to die from the virus) would speed up the inevitable transition to "herd immunity" while simultaneously protecting the vulnerable.

And for the love of all that is good, we should certainly NOT have closed colleges and kicked out the students, sending them home to go infect their parents and grandparents!  Maybe very briefly cancelling in-person classes, and isolating those students who were actually sick, but that's about it.  Otherwise, treat it like a flu or norovirus outbreak.

Net result is a much shorter pandemic and far fewer deaths, for a fraction of the cost of what we have been doing since March.  And without the massive collateral damage of lockdowns either.  Especially if we also recommended and provided everyone with the best treatment and prophylaxis (see here) that we know now would have worked wonders.

Again, hindsight is 2020.

What Do Lockdowns And The 21 Drinking Age Have In Common? (Part Deux)

Turns out, quite a lot in fact.

Both COVID-19 lockdowns and the 21 drinking age  were first implemented in a moment of panic during a deadly crisis--coronavirus in the first case, drunk driving in the second.  While neither were sold as miracles at first, they were indeed sold as ways to mitigate, or in the lingua franca of 2020, "flatten the curve" by at least slowing down the crises and hopefully save lives in the process.   Delay the peak of coronavirus cases and protect the hospitals from collapse, we were told.  Delay legal access to drinking alcohol until 21 and protect young people and those they share the road with until they are a bit more mature, we were told.  And of course in both cases, the more zealous of the enthusiasts sold it as a suppression strategy or even an eradication strategy rather than merely mitigation--if only they could make up their minds.  The message was we could either give up some of our rights temporarily or all of our rights permanently, or at least that we had a moral duty to give up some of our rights lest we have unacceptably high death rates in both cases.  And we had to act NOW, or else.  No time to think it through, our brains must go into neutral for the time being.  After all, the models can't be wrong, can they?

And then once these measures were firmly in place for a while, relatively speaking, their enthusiasts seamlessly moved the goalposts.  Now it was no longer about preventing hospitals from collapsing (which generally didn't happen anywhere outside of Lombardy, Italy regardless of whether a country did a lockdown or not) or keeping a massive excess of blood off of the Demolition Derby-style highways, but rather about "saving lives at any cost" (as long as someone else pays it, of course) and with the 21 drinking age more recently about protecting "developing brains from damage" and other social-engineering goals.  And then there is the "blood borders" phenomenon both with the virus as well as DUI.  Thus the enthusiasts of both now wanted to extend these measures indefinitely, with the fear of all hell breaking loose if these restrictions are ever relaxed before a vaccine (for the virus) or better public transit and self-driving cars (for DUI)--but in the latter case they still have the pseudo-neuroscience argument to fall back on as well.  By design, there is no exit strategy.  And many people have been reluctant to support ending such policies since they fear blood on their hands if they do, making these policies politically a LOT harder to get out of than to get into.

The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies.
Such studies have found there is at best no correlation, and perhaps a perverse effect between the two defining features of hard lockdowns (stay-home orders and closures of all non-essential businesses) and COVID-19 cases and deaths per capita after other factors such as less-extreme policies are accounted for.  The benefits are thus nothing more than a statistical mirage that does not stand up to scrutiny--much like the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age vis-a-vis DUI deaths in the long run.

So what happened?  Turns out that in the case of both, the early adopters did fare better overall, at least at first, though many non-adopters did at least as good if not better in terms of reducing death rates by using far more moderate measures.  But for the belated and/or coerced adopters, both lockdowns and MLDA 21 turned out to be worse than useless, essentially pouring gasoline on the fire after the train has already left the station, and with plenty of collateral damage.  And while the book has not yet been completely written on the coronavirus pandemic saga, for the 21 drinking age we see even for the early adopters, the benefits were short-lived, and really ended up just delaying deaths by a few years, both from one cohort to the one one behind it, as well shifting deaths from the 18-20 group to the 21-24 group, possibly even resulting in a net increase in deaths in the long run.  Much like how for lockdowns, at best they delay some deaths by a few weeks compared to more moderate measures even when done early, at great cost to the economy and society.

Meanwhile, the collateral damage of lockdowns (economic depression, unemployment, inequality, poverty, alcohol and other drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, loneliness, poor mental health, delayed medical treatment, etc.), which also kills people too by the way, continues to mount with each passing week of lockdown, making an utter mockery of practically all progressive and even basic humanitarian priorities.  For the 21 drinking age, this collateral damage has resulted in forcing alcohol use underground and making it far more dangerous than it has to be, and people being reluctant to call 911 in the event of alcohol overdoses and injuries, and that maims and kills people too.  And for both, that's to say nothing of the damage to civil rights and liberties, culture, and community cohesion, that progressives would generally support.

As for protecting the most vulnerable members of society, we have seen this movie enough times to know how it ends, and it doesn't end well.  Both measures are far too crude to do actually protect them, and sadly but unsurprisingly, both have failed miserably in that regard.  Which is usually the case with such "blunt" policy instruments in general.  We know who the highest-risk groups are.  Thus, a more "focused protection" strategy in both instances is thus called for, provided that it still respects human rights.

And now in November 2020, eight months later, we are now seeing that the countries in Europe that locked down the hardest in the spring are now seeing the largest second waves in the fall, while Sweden and Belarus are barely even seeing any second wave at all, at least in terms of deaths and hospitalizations.  Thus, even more rapidly-mounting evidence that lockdowns at best merely postpone the inevitable, and at worst pour gasoline on the fire.

In other words, even when done early and enthusiastically, there is no short or long term benefit that cannot be had by more moderate measures done early and enthusiastically.  And in the long run, especially when done after the proverbial horse has bolted, the "cure" quickly becomes far worse than the disease.  And when we look at the control group--that is, those jurisdictions who did not take such measures at all--the case for both collapses.

Let America be America Again.  And end both bad policies yesterday, as both have by now long outlived their usefulness.  What are we waiting for?

The No-Brainer Solution To The College Question

The question being, not simply "should colleges reopen this fall", but HOW should they reopen?  Now that the COVID-19 pandemic is waning in practically all of the USA, even in the Sunbelt whose most recent wave just peaked in July and early August per Worldometer statistics, the answer should be obvious given the relatively low risk that traditional college aged young people typically are from the virus.  That is, a return to near normal from the start:

• Plan on reopening on time in August without delay.
• Compress the fall semester between opening day and Thanksgiving break, with no breaks or long weekends in between, and remain closed from Thanksgiving until early January, limiting the back-and forth.
• Allow the option of online coursework in addition to in-person classes.
• Require masks and/or social distancing only in classrooms and certain other publicly accessible buildings, otherwise don't force it.
• Limit dining hall occupancy to 50% of capacity.
• Allow gatherings up to 500 people outdoors, and 50 people indoors or 50% of a room's capacity, whichever is lesser. (That would be about a handful of people in a typical dorm room, or about 25 to 50 people in a typical house party.)
• Put hand sanitizer stations and mask kiosks everywhere, and vigorously and regularly disinfect classrooms and campus buildings.
• In the event of an actual outbreak on campus, simply cancel in-person classes for no more than two weeks at a time (mainly to protect commuter students), but do NOT close down completely and/or send students back home to infect their parents and grandparents!
• Isolate the sick and those who were in direct contact with them.  No one else.
• Make virus testing free and readily available for all upon request.

That's it.  Otherwise, it's back to the old normal for the most part.  And come the spring semester, hopefully 100% back to the old normal once again when they all build herd immunity if they don't already have it.  (How else are they gonna do it?)

And of course, make the 21 drinking age (and smoking and toking age) the absolute lowest enforcement priority.  And in general, treat college students as the young ADULTS that they actually are, and trust them to use their own judgment.  Why is that even such a controversial concept these days?

It is long past time to allow a typical (or at least near-typical) college experience to finally return.  No need for the sort of draconian or dystopian rules on campus that some colleges like Duke University are doing.  So what are we waiting for?

DISCLAIMER:  Neither Twenty-One Debunked nor the True Spirit of America Party encourage or condone the practice of "corona parties" or any other deliberate or grossly negligent mass infection-inducing behavior.  Seriously, now is really NOT the time to tempt fate!  Keep calm and carry on, live your life, and have fun, but still take precautions, use common sense, avoid excessive crowding in general, and if you have any sort of questionable symptoms, stay the hell home and don't have any guests over!  Young people, this means you too.

NOVEMBER UPDATE:   Three months later, Twenty-One Debunked still stands by what we originally said in August, with the added caveat that students should perhaps have all been initially tested for the virus upon arrival at college, which many colleges did not.  And perhaps exit testing before students leave for Thanksgiving break and/or winter break as well.

Does Cannabis Legalization Really Lead To More Traffic Deaths?

One of the most infamous anti-legalization talking points is that legalizing cannabis would inevitably cause carnage on the highways.  And we have thoroughly debunked that specious claim before.

But what about the recent pair of newer studies that appear to find a modest uptick in traffic deaths after legalization?  In contrast to previous studies that generally found no link with traffic casualities in the first three years after recreational legalization, one of the newer ones found an increase in traffic fatalities in the most recent year in which data were available, though still no shorter-term increase (echoing another study from last year that didn't find any uptick until five years later), while the second one found an increase (compared to synthetic controls) in Colorado but not in Washington for some reason.

Far from clarifying the issue, these newer studies leave the reader with more questions than answers.  Why so much heterogeneity and inconsistency between various studies and locations?  Why such a long time lag for the apparent effect to occur, especially given that repealing alcohol Prohibition in 1933 was associated with short-term increase in traffic fatalities per VMT that went back down to 1930-1931 levels by 1936?  And why have medical cannabis legalization laws been consistently associated with long-term decreases in traffic deaths, given the increased availability and vast gray area between recreational and medical use in practice?

Three things come to mind:  changes in tourism (thus skewing the numerator but not the denominator in per-capita crash death calculations), changes in gas prices (lower prices lead to more crashes and deaths), and changes in cannabis prices (lower prices leading to more use and possibly more stoned driving).  The first two can produce specious and spurious inferences when they are not controlled for, while the third factor as we have seen takes several years for prices to fall after recreational legalization, possibly explaining the apparent time lag with fatalities.  (That can, of course, be resolved simply by raising the taxes on cannabis.)  Or most likely of all, as per Occam's Razor, the vast inconsistencies simply mean that any supposed causal link between legalization and carnage on the highways was spurious all along.

Also, it is notable there does not seem to be such an effect seen in Canada, despite their lower age limits for cannabis (18 or 19, instead of 21 in the US states that legalized).  While Quebec recently raised it to 21 on January 1, 2020, there would still be over a year's worth of data for 2019 and late 2018 when it was still 18.  And Alberta's age limit still remains 18 for all three substances--alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

Thus, as per the overall weight of the evidence, Twenty-One Debunked will continue to declare this specious claim debunked for the time being.

Don't Ban Alcohol. Tax It Instead, And Restrict Quantities.

South Africa has had the dubious distinction of being the only country in the (non-Muslim) world to ban all alcohol sales during their coronavirus lockdown.  They recently lifted that ban.

To be clear, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support such a thing at all, as it is excessive and overbroad.  We also don't support general lockdowns either, given that they are also of dubious effectiveness and fly directly in the face of a supposedly free society and its Constitution.  But it is true nonetheless that alcohol abuse (and alcohol-related domestic violence and child abuse) is a problem in nearly all lockdown countries regardless, and large gatherings are of course a very big no-no during the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.  Now is clearly NOT the time to throw a kegger!  Thus, we support the following done in the USA for the remaining duration of the pandemic, which we define as at until least 30 days after the number of new cases reaches and remains at zero, or for 90 days total, whichever is longer:

• Raise the taxes on alcohol, dramatically.
• Maintain and enforce a ban on non-essential gatherings of 500 people or more, with perhaps a lower, double-digit limit on indoor gatherings specifically (since those are riskier).
• Ban the sale of kegs to anyone who is not a licensed bar or restaurant owner.
• Put a cap on the amount of alcohol an individual can purchase per person per day, such as no more than one case or 30-pack of beer, one gallon of wine, or two liters of hard alcohol less than or equal to 100 proof or one liter of hard alcohol greater than 100 proof.
• Reopen bars and restaurants with "Swedish rules" for the first couple of weeks:  restrict occupancy, table service only, outdoor seating preferred, no eating or drinking perpendicular (standing up).  Delay the reopening of nightclubs and casinos until a few weeks after bars reopen.
• For the first couple of weeks, require restaurant and bar staff to wear masks, and patrons to wear masks while not eating or drinking.
• Crack down heavily on drunk driving, drunk violence, and domestic and child abuse.
• Put a moratorium on enforcement of the 21 drinking age for any 18-20 year olds who are drinking responsibly and following such protocols above.  (Of course, the drinking age should be lowered to 18 yesterday.)

So what are we waiting for?

What Do Lockdowns And The 21 Drinking Age Have In Common?

Turns out, quite a lot in fact.

Both COVID-19 lockdowns and the 21 drinking age  were first implemented in a moment of panic during a deadly crisis--coronavirus in the first case, drunk driving in the second.  While neither were sold as miracles at first, they were indeed sold as ways to mitigate, or in the lingua franca of 2020, "flatten the curve" by at least slowing down the crises and hopefully save lives in the process.   Delay the peak of coronavirus cases and protect the hospitals from collapse, we were told.  Delay legal access to drinking alcohol until 21 and protect young people and those they share the road with until they are a bit more mature, we were told.  And of course in both cases, the more zealous of the enthusiasts sold it as a suppression strategy or even an eradication strategy rather than merely mitigation--if only they could make up their minds.  The message was we could either give up some of our rights temporarily or all of our rights permanently, or at least that we had a moral duty to give up some of our rights lest we have unacceptably high death rates in both cases.  And we had to act NOW, or else.  No time to think it through, our brains must go into neutral for the time being.  After all, the models can't be wrong, can they?

And then once these measures were firmly in place for a while, relatively speaking, their enthusiasts seamlessly moved the goalposts.  Now it was no longer about preventing hospitals from collapsing (which generally didn't happen anywhere outside of Lombardy, Italy regardless of whether a country did a lockdown or not) or keeping a massive excess of blood off of the Demolition Derby-style highways, but rather about "saving lives at any cost" (as long as someone else pays it, of course) and with the 21 drinking age more recently about protecting "developing brains from damage" and other social-engineering goals.  And then there is the "blood borders" phenomenon both with the virus as well as DUI.  Thus the enthusiasts of both now wanted to extend these measures indefinitely, with the fear of all hell breaking loose if these restrictions are ever relaxed before a vaccine (for the virus) or better public transit and self-driving cars (for DUI)--but in the latter case they still have the pseudo-neuroscience argument to fall back on as well.  By design, there is no exit strategy.  And many people are reluctant to support ending such policies since they fear blood on their hands if they do, making the policies politically a LOT harder to get out of than to get into.

The supposed effectiveness of lockdowns (compared to far less extreme restrictions) in terms of slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus has been called into serious question lately by more recent studies.
Such studies have found there is at best no correlation, and perhaps a perverse effect between the two defining features of hard lockdowns (stay-home orders and closures of all non-essential businesses) and COVID-19 cases and deaths per capita after other factors such as less-extreme policies are accounted for.  The benefits are thus nothing more than a statistical mirage that does not stand up to scrutiny--much like the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age vis-a-vis DUI deaths in the long run.

So what happened?  Turns out that in the case of both, the early adopters did fare better overall, at least at first, though many non-adopters did at least as good if not better in terms of reducing death rates by using far more moderate measures.  But for the belated and/or coerced adopters, both lockdowns and MLDA 21 turned out to be worse than useless, essentially pouring gasoline on the fire after the train has already left the station, and with plenty of collateral damage.  And while the book has not yet been completely written on the coronavirus pandemic saga, for the 21 drinking age we see even for the early adopters, the benefits were short-lived, and really ended up just delaying deaths by a few years, both from one cohort to the one one behind it, as well shifting deaths from the 18-20 group to the 21-24 group, possibly even resulting in a net increase in deaths in the long run.  Much like how for lockdowns, at best they delay some deaths by a few weeks compared to more moderate measures even when done early, at great cost to the economy and society.

Meanwhile, the collateral damage of lockdowns (economic depression, unemployment, inequality, poverty, alcohol and other drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, loneliness, poor mental health, delayed medical treatment, etc.), which also kills people too by the way, continues to mount with each passing week of lockdown, making an utter mockery of practically all progressive and even basic humanitarian priorities.  For the 21 drinking age, this collateral damage has resulted in forcing alcohol use underground and making it far more dangerous than it has to be, and people being reluctant to call 911 in the event of alcohol overdoses and injuries, and that maims and kills people too.  And for both, that's to say nothing of the damage to civil rights and liberties, culture, and community cohesion, that progressives would generally support.

As for protecting the most vulnerable members of society, we have seen this movie enough times to know how it ends, and it doesn't end well.  Both measures are far too crude to do actually protect them, and sadly but unsurprisingly, both have failed miserably in that regard.  Which is usually the case with such "blunt" policy instruments in general.

In other words, even when done early and enthusiastically, there is no short or long term benefit that cannot be had by more moderate measures done early and enthusiastically.  And in the long run, especially when done after the proverbial horse has bolted, the "cure" quickly becomes far worse than the disease.  And when we look at the control group--that is, those jurisdictions who did not take such measures at all--the case for both collapses.

Let America be America Again.  And end both bad policies yesterday, as both have by now outlived their usefulness.  What are we waiting for?