Meta-analysis from prestigious university concludes lockdowns “contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.”
The unprecedented draconian COVID lockdowns had “little to no effect” on curbing coronavirus deaths, but they did leave a “devastating” impact on society, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.
The University’s “Studies in Applied Economics” institute paper called “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality” found lockdowns during the pandemic’s early phase in 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%.
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
However, the lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe did have “devastating effects” on the economy and society at large, the paper claimed.
“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and undermining liberal democracy,” the researchers said.
The meta-analysis was conducted by three professors from the U.S., Denmark, and Sweden, who defined lockdowns as compulsory, “non-pharmaceutical intervention” (NPI), such as limiting one’s movement, closing schools or businesses, or banning international travel.
The researchers then narrowed down 18,590 studies to 34 “qualified studies after three levels of review.” From there, 24 of those studies were included in the meta-analysis.
From the paper:
Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?”
We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.
The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century.
However, 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.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the paper concluded.
This major study rebukes the official talking point from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), that lockdowns were an essential tool to combat the China Virus pandemic.
“Large scale social distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting contact between people,” the WHO website states.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky praised the Chinese Communist Party’s lockdowns in 2020, citing their self-reported data at face value as accurate.
“To give you a sense of what lockdowns were able to do in other countries—and, I mean, really strict lockdowns—in China, their death rate is three per million,” she said.
The WEF in 2020 claimed that “extreme social distancing is pretty much the only intervention available to help individuals stay healthy, and to break the chain of transmission – giving more vulnerable populations a fighting chance of surviving this pandemic.”
Note: The WEF wrote articles like this;
NIAID Director Anthony Fauci even expressed frustration that lockdowns weren’t mandated in all 50 states.
Read the Johns Hopkins paper: