{"id":261098,"date":"2023-06-07T15:00:13","date_gmt":"2023-06-07T13:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=261098"},"modified":"2023-06-07T15:00:16","modified_gmt":"2023-06-07T13:00:16","slug":"the-failure-of-lockdowns-iea-speaks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=261098","title":{"rendered":"The Failure of Lockdowns: IEA Speaks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0From BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Anew systematic review and meta-analysis <\/a>published by the Institute of Economic Affairs finds that Covid lockdowns failed to significantly reduce deaths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 percent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season \u2013 in England and Wales, 18,500\u201324,800 flu deaths occur, in Europe 72,000 flu deaths occur, and in the United States 38,000 flu deaths occur in a typical flu season.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf These results pale in comparison to the Imperial College of London\u2019s modeling exercises (March 2020), which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Herby, Jonung, and Hanke conclude that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic \u2013 but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID-19 lockdowns were \u201ca global policy failure of gigantic proportions,\u201d according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,\u201d according to one of the study\u2019s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden\u2019s Lund University, \u201cIt demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comprehensive 220-page book, published today by the London-based think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors\u2019 screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modeling exercises. A meta-analysis is considered the \u2018gold-standard\u2019 for evidence, as it combines comparable, independent studies to determine overall trends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors, including Professor Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University, also consider a range of studies that determined the impact of individual lockdown restrictions, including stay at-home rules to school closures and travel restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Shelter-in-place (stay-at-home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 percent;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 percent;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six percent;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 percent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf School closures resulted in a between 2.5 percent and 6.2 percent mortality reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second approach employed by the authors to estimate the effects of lockdowns on mortality combined studies that looked at specific lockdown measures (such as school closures, mask wearing, etc.) on how single non-pharmaceutical interventions were actually used in Europe and the United States. Using this approach, the authors estimate that lockdowns reduced mortality by 10.7 percent in the spring of 2020 \u2013 significantly less than estimates produced by epidemiological modelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study compares the effect of lockdown measures against the effect of \u2018doing the least,\u2019 rather than doing nothing at all. Sweden\u2019s response to COVID was among the least stringent in Europe, but still imposed some legal restrictions and included an extensive public information campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Voluntary measures, like social distancing and the reduction of person-to-person contact, effectively reduced COVID mortality in Sweden, a country that did not impose draconian legal restrictions. This is consistent with evidence early in the pandemic that voluntary action began reducing transmission before lockdowns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors also conclude that legal mandates only limited a relatively small set of potential contagious contacts, and could in some cases have backfired by encouraging people to stay indoors in less safe environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If voluntary action, minor legal changes, and proactive information campaigns effectively reduced the transmission of COVID, lockdowns were unwarranted from a public health point of view. This negative conclusion is amplified by the significant economic and social costs associated with lockdowns, which include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf stunted economic growth;
\u25cf large increases in public debt;
\u25cf rising inequality;
\u25cf damage to children\u2019s education and health;
\u25cf Reduced health-related quality of life;
\u25cf damage to mental health;
\u25cf increased crime; and
\u25cf threats to democracy and loss of freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be \u2018rejected out of hand\u2019 to control future pandemics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jonas Herby, co-author of the study and special adviser at the Center for Political Studies (CEPOS), an independent classical liberal think tank based in Copenhagen, Denmark, said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cNumerous misleading studies, driven by subjective models and overlooking significant factors like voluntary behaviour changes, heavily influenced the initial perception of lockdowns as highly effective measures. Our meta-analysis suggests that when researchers account for additional variables, such as voluntary behaviour, the impact of lockdowns becomes negligible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Professor Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University: \u201cWhen it comes to COVID, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the lives saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n