Thumb Reporter

As debate over whether there should be a second round of lockdowns as expected seasonal increases in COVID-19 infection rates begin to show up in national statistics, both politicians and health experts have varying opinions.

U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) recently appeared on WJR’s "The Frank Beckmann Show" to discuss his resistance to an additional attempt to lock down the entire country.

While Mitchell told Beckmann that he was a supporter of the initial lockdowns instituted by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in the early days of the pandemic, the time for lockdowns has passed.

U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell | Mitchell.House.gov

“There are a lot of health experts -- infectious disease folks -- who have indicated that full-on lockdowns are not going to cure the problem we’re having, or the challenge we have with COVID-19,” Mitchell told Beckmann.

Mitchell reminded the audience that the original intent of lockdowns was simply to prevent the U.S. health care system from being overwhelmed until the nation had a better grasp on how to protect the most at-risk individuals -- and until health care experts actually understood who those individuals were.

With that accomplished, the health experts believe the health risks of further lockdowns would be greater than any potential benefit.

“And the point they make is that the costs involved in terms of other health conditions that aren’t addressed by lockdowns, as well as the economic impact and the impact that has on families, is massive,” Mitchell told Beckmann.

As a result, many experts are now saying that further lockdowns simply make no sense, according to Mitchell.

“We need to protect people who are high-risk and move on with life,” Mitchell told Beckmann. “We open the economy and address this coronavirus as best we can.”

And government should show some faith in people to do what is needed to stay healthy as well, Mitchell said.

“Don’t assume that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, that they need to have orders and threats and fines and those types of things. It's a very important difference in philosophy,” he told Beckmann.