comments

Johns Hopkins analysis disputes the effectiveness of lockdowns

(Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, January 2022)A group of applied economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins university have released a meta-analysis of a large number of studies of the effectiveness of lockdowns and arrived at the surprising conclusion that they have been singularly ineffective at reducing Covid deaths. But does it stand up?

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:

  1. Covid is an airborne virus, spread by virus fragments in the air (aerosol or droplets) to others in close proximity
  2. It follows that its spread can be limited by reducing the frequency and duration of people coming into close contact.
  3. Lockdowns reduce the frequency and duration of interpersonal contacts
  4. 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.

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Readings
■
Johns Hopkins analysis disputes the effectiveness of lockdowns
□
Why Putin is beholden to Stalin's legacy
□
Russia's surprising military blunders in Ukraine
□
Why John Mearsheimer blames the U.S. for the crisis in Ukraine
□
A lesson in energy masochism
□
NATO members mount huge resupply operation
□
Regathering of the Russian lands
□
Vladimir Putin's clash of civilizations
□
Germany, in historic reversal, abandons pro-Putin Russia policy
□
The Russian spy boss humiliated by Putin
□
War propaganda becoming more militaristic, authoritarian and reckless
□
What's on Putin's mind?
□
NATO enlargement and Russia: Die-hard myths and real dilemmas
□
Can Russia actually control Ukraine?
□
China's Ukraine crisis
□
Do race academics matter?
□
How China captured Hollywood
□
Putin's spiritual destiny
□
Introducing Race Marxism
□
The West is sleepwalking into war in Ukraine
□
Are we closer to Bradbury's dystopia than Orwell's or Huxley's?
□
Stunning new evidence re Trump spying allegations
□
Would permanently excluding Ukraine from NATO have satisfied Russia?
□
How Russia hooked Europe on its oil and gas
□
Why "anti-racism" should be resisted
□
Free speech in the UK?
□
Taking the low road: China's influence in Aust states and territories
□
The neoliberal war on dissent in the West
□
Fusion power is coming
□
The Silencing: a special report on China and the Uyghurs
□
Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an insider now?
□
A life that doesn't matter
□
America's asymmetric civil war
□
Anomalies in the Chinese Covid data
□
Australia's surprising Covid excess death count
□
Biden's budget priorities and the China threat
□
Big help with a little badmouth
□
Cancelled New York Times journalist's anti-woke manifesto
□
China: Friend or Foe? Oxford Union debate
□
China's sway over Australian universities
□
Covid and Big Pharma: The debate about cheap generic drugs
□
CRT in schools— Virginia puts NSW to shame
□
Data scientist fired from Reuters for questioning BLM
□
Does the CCP control Extinction Rebellion?
□
Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
□
Gallant little Lithuania
□
How Britain became Putin's playground
□
How feminism ate itself
□
How our universities became sheep factories
□
How to deal with the "seditionists"
□
If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals
□
Imperial College London cancels Thomas Huxley
□
Intel's groveling China apology
□
Killing the Wuhan lab leak theory
□
Meritocracy's cost
□
New study says lockdowns don't work. Fact or fiction?
□
Proposed new terrorism law would exclude jihadists
□
Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was co-ordinated
□
Should race matter when choosing Supreme Court justices?
□
The CCP and the problem of "elite capture"
□
The dispensable Mrs Merkel
□
The end of progressive America?
□
The failure of "Latinx"
□
The foolishness of "ugly freedoms"
□
The Ghost of Jim Crow
□
The green threat to effective climate policy
□
The histrionics and melodrama around 1/6
□
The Law of Group Polarization
□
The liberal fantasy of the Capitol coup
□
The Marxist who antagonizes liberals and the Left
□
Victims of the unvaccinated
□
Welcome to the end of democracy
□
What if democracy and climate mitigation are incompatible?
□
What the Right gets wrong about Ukraine...
□
White supremacy: The identarian Left's Theory of Everything
□
Why did scientists suppress the lab-leak theory?
□
Why is the Right so unattractive?
□
Yes, there is a counter revolution
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (5)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip