The study claims lockdowns in the United States and Europe only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 percent on average, with even the much more stringent stay-in-place orders only causing a 2.9 percent reduction.
The study has been welcomed by some on the Right, including a number of Fox News hosts, who have attacked other media for ignoring it. I think they have jumped the gun on this one. It is always a good idea, in my view, to refrain from citing a new study that reports counter-intuitive results until you have seen the critiques, which have not been slow in coming. And they have been pretty devastating, for example here and here.
I thought it was suspect from the outset. The case for lockdowns can be summed up by the following syllogism:
- Covid is an airborne virus, spread by virus fragments in the air (aerosol or droplets) to others in close proximity
- It follows that its spread can be limited by reducing the frequency and duration of people coming into close contact.
- Lockdowns reduce the frequency and duration of interpersonal contacts
- Therefore lockdowns should reduce the spread of Covid.
I would like to know, which of the premises in this syllogism lockdown sceptics dispute?
There is, of course, a need to weigh the benefits of lockdowns against the considerable harms they cause, including adverse health effects, which can be considerable, and to judge when to ease the restrictions based on all these considerations. However to suggest they have negligible effects on virus spread seems ludicrous.
Excerpts Read the article Discuss the article View in graph
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups suppor tthe conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducingCOVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects,they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. Inconsequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.