New study says lockdowns only reduced COVID mortality by .2 percent
Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 PERCENT at ‘enormous economic and social costs’, Johns Hopkins study finds
Researchers found lockdown measures put in place during the early wave of the pandemic only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2 percent in the U.S. and EuropeThe study concluded that lockdowns, school closures, and limiting gatherings did not have a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortalityResearchers warned that lockdowns ‘marginal at best’ benefits needed to be compared with their ‘devastating effects’ on the economy and society‘They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,’ researchers wrote
<!–
<!–
<!–<!–
<!–
(function (src, d, tag){
var s = d.createElement(tag), prev = d.getElementsByTagName(tag)[0];
s.src = src;
prev.parentNode.insertBefore(s, prev);
}(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/1.17.0/async_bundle–.js”, document, “script”));
<!–
DM.loadCSS(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/gunther-2159/video_bundle–.css”);
<!–
The original coronavirus lockdowns had ‘little to no’ effect on countries’ pandemic death tolls, a controversial report suggests.
Economists who carried out a meta-analysis found draconian shutdowns imposed in spring 2020 only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 per cent in the US, UK and Europe.
They warned that lockdowns caused ‘enormous economic and social costs’ and concluded they were ‘ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument’ going forward.
The review, led by a Johns Hopkins University professor, found border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality, reducing deaths by just 0.1 per cent.
However the researchers found closing nonessential shops caused a 10.6 per cent drop in virus deaths. Their report, which has not been peer-reviewed, said that this was probably due to shutting pubs and restaurants where alcohol is consumed. School closures was linked to a smaller 4.4 per cent decrease.
The researchers originally identified 18,590 global studies into lockdowns, which they claim had to be whittled down to just 24 to answer their research question.
Critics have accused them of ‘cherry-picking’ studies to suit their narrative and have raised doubts about the biases of its authors, who have been vocal about lockdowns and vaccine mandates on social media.
Most scientists believe that, before the arrival of vaccines and antivirals, lockdowns had a significant effect on cutting transmission and therefore reducing the number of hospital admissions and deaths caused by Covid.
But there has been a growing consensus that draconian restrictions have led to a rise in non-Covid deaths, thought to be people whose conditions worsened during the pandemic when they could not access healthcare.
Economists who carried out a meta-analysis of 24 studies found draconian shutdowns imposed in spring 2020 only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 per cent in the US and Europe
They said that while there was some evidence lockdowns reduce transmission, death rates tended to even out as time went on, with difference in population age, health and health care systems the defining factors of countries’ death rates
The researchers originally identified 18,590 global studies into lockdowns, which they claim had to be whittled down to just 34 to answer their research question. Only 24 studies ended up being used
In the latest report, the researchers admit their review does not answer ‘why’ lockdowns didn’t achieve their ultimate goal in saving lives but they float a number of explanations.
They suggest that lockdowns may have greater unintended consequences than was previously thought.
An example given was that isolating people at home may have led to them passing a higher viral load to their family members, causing more severe illness.
Or closing certain retail businesses may lead to a higher concentration of people in ‘essential’ shops where the risk of transmission is higher.
Another possible theory is that people’s behaviour rebounded after lockdowns squashed case rates so low, they perceived the virus as less of a threat.
They claimed the best explanation for differing Covid death rates in countries was ‘differences in population age and health’ and the ‘quality of the health sector.
But they could not rule out ‘less obvious factors, such as culture, communication, and coincidences’.
To come to their findings, the researchers analysed 24 studies that probed the effect of Covid restrictions during the first wave in various countries around the world.
The papers chosen looked at lockdowns compared to no lockdowns and mandatory restrictions versus voluntary rules.
The John Hopkins review concluded that lockdowns ‘marginal at best’ benefits needed to be compared with their ‘devastating effects’ on the economy and society.
‘They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,’ they wrote.
The report was led by Steve Hanke, a founder of the Johns Hopkins School of Applied Economics.
He has been an outspoken critic of economically-damaging restrictions throughout the pandemic, describing jab mandates as ‘fascist’.
