Johns Hopkins study: Lockdowns had little effect, should be rejected as a public pandemic tool

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. In
consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy
instrument.

Such is the stunning conclusion at the end of a 68-page analysis titled, “A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY” published yesterday, February 2nd. by Johns Hopkins University.

The findings they came to apply to both the United States, and other countries.

The authors noted reasons why their findings may differentiate from that of epidemiologists who strongly support lockdowns.

“First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in
social distancing regardless of what the government mandates.” – So, based on the fact that there was/is a pandemic, people on their own began to change their behaviors – going out less, socializing less, etc.

“Second, mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly
regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc,” The study goes on to point to countries such as Denmark and Norway who controlled the spread of the virus, but allowed free circulation for its people.

“Third, even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the
behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by
changing behavior. If closing bars and restaurants causes the prevalence of the disease to fall toward zero, the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene also falls towards zero, and the disease will return.””

“Fourth, unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized…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. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality.”

As states begin to release their hold on strong mandates – while others are tightening them – this study can lend some guidance to the “follow the science” guidelines.

The report also notes that other countries had a much more subdued approach to public health messages than the United States, and this was significant in compliance and cautions.

Read the report, in its entirety, here: