Meta-analysis concludes: "lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."
Lockdowns had ‘little to no effect’ on saving lives during the pandemic — and ‘should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,’ according to a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.
According to this report, published in the New York Post, a new meta-analysis by a group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths. Instead, the report continues,
the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average” [emphasis added]. Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted.
“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,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics…
In fact, the early lockdowns “have had devastating effects,” the authors insisted. “They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the damning report insisted.
“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.
I hate like the dickens to have to say “I told you so,” but…..
Ironically, those responsible (and I used that term guardedly, since irresponsibility seems to have been a more accurate characterization) for managing (another term used guardedly!) the pandemic response seem to have almost completely ignored features of their own 2007 CDC pandemic response guidelines, including this:
Balancing of Individual Liberty and Community Interests
Pandemic influenza planning, like other public and community health activities, is a cooperative and shared responsibility that balances community and individual interests. During the course of a pandemic, the functioning of society may be threatened.
Our moral tradition embodies an understanding that it may be ethically acceptable (or perhaps even ethically mandatory) to suspend some (but not all) ordinary moral rules in such circumstances. For example, limits on individual freedom or choice may be necessary to protect individuals as well as entire communities during pandemic influenza.
Yet, individual liberty should be restricted with great care and only when alternative approaches to realizing the goal of weathering the pandemic are not likely to be effective [emphasis added]. Suspensions of ordinary moral rules should be anticipated and the conditions calling for such suspensions should be specified.
Guiding principles in determining these restrictions include:
Adopting the least restrictive practices that will allow the common good to be protected.
Ensuring that restrictions are necessary and proportional to the need for protection.
Attempting to ensure that those impacted by restrictions receive support from the community (e.g., job security, financial support for individuals and their families, provision of food and other necessities to those who are isolated or placed under quarantine, and/or protection against stigmatization or unwarranted disclosure of private information).
“Protection against stigmatization or unwarranted disclosures of private information” – vaccine passports, anyone…?
While “Ethical guidelines in Pandemic Influenza – Recommendations of the Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” does recognize, as it should, that “Legitimate restrictions on individual freedom may occur if, in exercising one’s freedom, one places others at risk,” and that “restrictions essential to the common good, including the public health, of society may be imposed on each member of society,” it consistently and emphatically balances that with the caveat that “Respect for individual autonomy is founded on the inherent dignity and worth of the individual and the understanding of each individual’s general right to non-interference. Therefore justification for any restrictions on individual freedom… must always be carefully considered and justified.”
It further notes that
In enacting any measure where personal freedom is limited, the least restrictive, effective measure should be taken. Enactment of these measures should be based on the best available scientific evidence that:
The liberty-limiting measure will achieve its intended goal.
The limitation is proportional and no less restrictive measure is likely to be as effective. An exception to this criterion may be justified if the less restrictive measure would be unduly burdensome (e.g., either too expensive or the agency responsible for implementation lacks the resources or expertise to implement).
Failure to implement the measure is likely to result in grave harm to the functioning of society or to the well-being of the public. For example, if quarantine is enacted, the duration of the quarantine should be clearly informed by transmission characteristics and should be as short as is medically justifiable. Home quarantine should be honored where reasonable and desired, and monitoring/surveillance should be as non-intrusive as is reasonable. We should continually be asking what justifies one further restrictive step.
It also sees as key components of pandemic response that
There is a commitment to transparency throughout the pandemic influenza planning and response process. The reasoning behind choices made is fully articulated (in language appropriate to particular audiences) and the values and principles justifying those decisions are clearly identified and open for examination. This commitment to clarity and openness, which is based on a deep respect for all individuals and communities involved, exists in balance with the understanding that those with the authority and responsibility of making decisions must often make decisions in a timely manner.
and that
Public engagement and involvement are essential to build public will and trust and should be evidenced throughout the planning and response process. The public is seen as a partner with other experts [emphasis added], with particular attention to vulnerable or historically marginalized members of society. Clear mechanisms must be created for public involvement in planning and for feedback throughout the process.
These are all elements that were (and in many cases, continue to be) implemented poorly or not at all during the public response to the present pandemic, both here in the United States and abroad. Public engagement was minimal, transparency was nearly nonexistent, and the principle of using the least-restrictive measures possible seems hardly to have been considered, in many cases.
This lack of transparency, discussion and debate, and public input created the conditions, in my opinion, for the draconian lockdowns – still ongoing on some areas, including our neighbors to the north in Canada – which had and have minimal-to-no effect (0.02%) on reducing covid mortality, and which had and continue to have crippling effects on society as a whole. Sadly, I doubt that anyone will ever be held properly accountable for this exhibition of widespread malfeasance.
But at least movements like the Freedom Convoy 2022 in Canada, and other protests elsewhere in the world, are encouraging signs that people are beginning to push back!