A team headed by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the initial surge of the coronavirus pandemic to investigate assumptions that ‘stringent restrictions’ would limit deaths.
However the meta-analysis found that enforced lockdowns in Europe and the US had only “reduced COVID19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”
Border closures were found to be even less effective, with death rates only decreasing about 0.1 percent.
Alarmingly, a portion of the studies implied that limiting people from gatherings in safe outdoor areas could very well have been “counterproductive and increased” the mortality rate.
The authors stated that the early lockdowns “have had devastating effects.”
Lockdowns while not fulfilling their role of limiting death from COVID-19 have in themselves unleashed huge economic, social and mental health effects where they have been employed. They also perpetuated unemployment, domestic violence, reduced schooling and a surge in drug overdoses and increased consumption of alcohol.
The researchers found that: ” In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures and limited gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
The study found however that the shutting down of “essential” businesses could bring down the death rate from the virus by up to 10 per cent. This was found “likely to be related to the closure of bars.”
School closures were linked to a smaller 4.4 per cent decrease.
This is not the first study of its kind to deem lockdowns as overblown in regards to saving lives during the pandemic.
A previous study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that U:S “shelter-in-place” orders “have no detectable health benefits.”
They did however add that the policy failed most probably due to the fact that Americans had already begun to follow social distancing protocols on their own accord.