The imposition of lockdowns by governments around the world during the Chinese coronavirus crisis was “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions” that had a “negligible” impact on loss of life compared to the steep costs on society, a landmark study has found.
A peer-reviewed study published by the Institute for Economic Affairs from researchers, including economics Professor Steve H. Hanke of Johns Hopkins University, has found that countries that locked down their citizens faired little better than countries such as Sweden, which imposed relatively few restrictions in favour of allowing its citizens to exercise their own caution.
The Herby-Jonung-Hanke review, which conducted a meta-analysis of 19,646 studies on lockdowns from countries around the world, found that lockdowns, defined as any non-pharmaceutical intervention, managed to reduce mortality by 3.2 per cent in comparison to countries that adopted a more laissez-faire approach during the first lockdowns in the Spring of 2020.
According to the study, this means that the initial lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths throughout Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States. The authors noted that the number of deaths prevented by restrictions paled in comparison to the number of deaths experienced during a typical flu season.
The study found that stay-at-home orders in Europe and the U.S. only reduced mortality rates by 1.4 and 4.1 per cent, school closures only between 2.5 and 6.2 per cent, and shutting down businesses reduced deaths by 7.5 per cent. Even under a broader definition of lockdown, the study claimed that at best measures only reduced Covid deaths by 10.7 per cent.
While they did find evidence that mask mandates — which most countries avoided during the initial lockdown — may have had more of an impact, at an estimated 18.7 per cent mortality reduction, the researchers said that it still remains to be seen if the negative societal impacts of masking add up to a fair trade-off.
They went on to note that the efficacy of locking down “paled in comparison” to the prophecies from the likes of disgraced ‘Professor Pantsdown’ Neil Ferguson of Imperial College of London, who claimed that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the UK and more than 2 million in the United States.
Ferguson, whose predictions influenced governments to lock down across the globe, later admitted that the policy was based on the one imposed in Communist China and that he was originally doubtful that they could “get away” with it in what are sometimes called free countries.
A previous version of the study, published last year as a working paper and without data from the UK, was criticised by Prof Ferguson, saying that it is difficult to distinguish the precise impact of individual non-pharmaceutical interventions given that the use of last resort tactics such as closing businesses or issuing stay at home orders were often taken in combination with other more long term restrictions, such as mask wearing.
Ferguson, who sensationally was caught breaking the very lockdown measures he helped to usher in to meet with his married lover, added: “Analysis has been further complicated by the accumulation of immunity (from infection and vaccination) in populations together with the emergence of new Covid-19 variants. Distinguishing the relative effectiveness of mandates versus government recommendations – while clearly of political interest – is even more challenging, given the large between- (and even within-) country differences in population responses to both types of measures,”
Dr Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who was also critical of the previous release of the study for not accounting for voluntary behavioural modification, told The Guardian on Monday: “In every country, Sweden included, the interventions themselves saved many, many lives. But in every country, Sweden included, there were major economic impacts.”
“Whether the interventions should have been required by law or purely voluntary depends a lot on local circumstances, among other factors,” Sharfstein continued. “But it’s important to make sure people don’t get confused and think that we would all have been fine just living our lives as usual in the spring of 2020. That would have been catastrophic.”
The study noted that lockdowns had significant negative impacts on economic growth, public debt, economic inequality, children’s education and health, health-related quality of life, mental health, and crime, as well as the detrimental impact on democracy and freedom.
The authors concluded that: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
Co-author Dr Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, said that the study “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.”
Prof 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: said: “When 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.”
In response to the study, a UK government spokesman told The Telegraph: “We are committed to learning from the Covid Inquiry’s findings, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.”
The findings of the review into the British government’s handling of the Chinese coronavirus crisis are not expected to be published until 2026.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.