NEWS REPORT NEWS REPORT
‘Lockdowns prevented just 0.2 per cent of deaths’
[and caused multitudes of early deaths due to patients with other
illnesses not getting treatment, and people not wishing to go to hospital any
longer in case they caught the ‘viral’ and died there]…
in comparison with simply
trusting people to do the right thing, a new study suggests.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, in the US, Lund
University, in Sweden and the Centre for Political Studies, in Denmark, said
the costs to society far outweighed the benefits, and called for lockdown to be
“rejected out of hand” as a future pandemic policy.
The team even found that some lockdown measures may have
increased deaths by stopping access to outdoor space, “pushing people to
meet at less safe places” while isolating infected people indoors, where they
could pass the virus on to family members and housemates.
“We do find some evidence that
limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased Covid-19 mortality,”
the authors concluded. “Often, lockdowns have limited people’s access to safe
outdoor places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask
mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at
less safe indoor places.”
To calculate the benefits of
lockdown, the researchers looked at 24 academic papers estimating their
effectiveness as well as other interventions such as wearing masks, business
and school closures, border closures and stay at home orders.
They found that some measures did
save lives. Closing non-essential businesses was estimated to have lowered
mortality by about 10.6 per cent, a fall largely driven by closing drinking
establishments.
Shutting schools possibly also
lowered deaths by 4.4 per cent, while asking people to stay at home perhaps prevented
2.9 per cent of deaths, and border controls roughly 0.1 per cent.
However, the researchers found
that legally enforced lockdowns were only a tiny bit better at cutting deaths
than allowing the public to follow recommendations including working from home
and limiting social contact, as happened in countries such as Sweden.
The first lockdown prevented just
0.2 per cent of deaths, they concluded – which for Britain in the first wave
would mean it saved about 100 lives out of 52,000 – when compared to letting
people take precautions themselves.
'When we look at lockdown, we don't find much of an effect'
Jonas Herby, a special adviser at
the Centre for Political Studies and one of the study’s authors, told The
Telegraph: “When we look at lockdown, we don’t find much of an effect.
“We think that most people don’t
want to get sick or infect their neighbours, so if you just give people the
proper knowledge they do the right thing to take care of themselves, and
others, and so that’s why lockdowns don’t work.
“In general, we should trust that
people can make the right decisions, so the key thing is to educate them and
tell them when the infection rates are high and when it’s dangerous to go out
and how to protect yourself.
“One possible reason that
lockdowns seem ineffective is that some measures are counterproductive. There
is some evidence that putting
limits on gatherings actually increased the number of deaths.”
The authors criticised the
original Imperial College London model which suggested that Britain could see
500,000 deaths without a lockdown, saying it did not take into account the real-world
behaviour of people during a pandemic.
Researchers said it was clear
that the public would naturally socially distance and cut their contacts even
without state intervention, leading to a large drop in deaths.
Steve Hanke, a professor of
applied economics at Johns Hopkins and another of the study’s authors, said:
“Lockdowns in Europe and the US decreased Kovid-19 mortality by a measly 0.2
per cent on average, while the economic costs of lockdowns were enormous. I find zero evidence to support
lockdowns.”
One of the studies cited in the
review found that voluntary behavioural changes are 10 times as important as
mandatory behavioural changes in combating Kovid. It found that lockdowns only
regulate “a fraction of our potential contagious contacts” and cannot enforce
hand washing, coughing etiquette or how close people stand together in
supermarkets.
Countries such as Denmark,
Finland and Norway, which all kept mortality relatively low, allowed people to
go to work, use public transport and meet privately at home during the first
lockdown, the authors said.
'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'
They concluded: “Lockdowns during
the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They
have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing
schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and
undermining liberal democracy.
“These costs to society must be
compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are
marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong
conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy
instrument.”
Truth must prevail after all of the deceit and manipulation
of populations through the media's Fear Agenda these last two years.
