In January 2022, a report was published under the banner of The John Hopkins Institute on the effectiveness of Lockdowns. According to this report, lockdowns have little to no effect on the pandemic, while causing a lot of damage. The Eucalyptic Society posted it this week a post in which this is summarized succinctly. In the meantime I had also read the necessary sputtering from the usual suspects, with the usual chair leg sawmill: Not all authors are on the payroll at the JHI, the concept of "Lockdown" is too vague to be able to do scientific research about it, it would again be cherry-picked studies etc. etc. In short: few substantial arguments and no figures.
It is nice to look at previous similar criticisms in this context, just as we did with the fact check on Geert Vandenbossche. For example, the British Medical Journal (July 2021) published a Pro-lockdown 'commentary' in which the criticisms of lockdowns at the time were put into perspective.
Do those pro-lockdown arguments still stand?
In the most important findings of that pro-lockdown Commentary, the examples cited are particularly striking. Should I have read the entire study? Maybe but yes, half a year old and after reading the Summary Box I didn't need it anymore.
Article Summary Box
- Restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 (known as 'lockdowns') are associated with health harms
- However, it is challenging to determine whether lockdowns caused the damage or whether this damage is a direct result of the underlying health disaster of the pandemic.
- Careful analysis of excess mortality suggests that lockdowns are not associated with large numbers of deaths in places that have avoided major COVID-19 epidemics (e.g. Australia, New Zealand)
- This evidence must be balanced against the very serious harm caused by COVID-19 itself, as can be seen, for example, in Brazil and India
- Government interventions are unlikely to have been worse than the pandemic itself in most situations using data collected so far.
Ad 1. There is health damage. They do not mean net, after deduction of other damages. The authors argue nothing more than that every intervention always has collateral damage. That is a known fact, so they probably mention this as the first point for those who did not know this yet. (If there were only advantages to it, you would have to wonder why we don't always do it, wouldn't you?)
Ad 2. Is the damage really from the lockdowns? Fair question but less difficult to answer than the authors make it seem. To say that it reinforces their point... Lockdown results are compared to harms without lockdowns in all sorts of ways, for example by looking at similar or nearby areas or comparing the situation before and after. All studies are working to make that distinction, with different perspectives.
From these generalities, we now come to more specific arguments.
Ad 3. Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as successes of lockdown approach. Both are areas surrounded by water that are therefore already incomparable with densely populated and tightly interwoven areas. The initial situation there is reminiscent of the isolation on an island, as Ab Osterhaus outlined it – but in reverse: all vaccinated people together instead of all unvaccinated people.
(FYI: Australia has 3.3 inhabitants per km2. New Zealand 18, with only 5.1 million inhabitants. Europe has 112 inhabitants per km2, India: 464(!). Brazil 25 – they have the Amazon and even then it is busier than New Zealand.)
Ad 4. Brazil and India are brought forward to show how devastating Covid-19 is without a proper lockdown. We still remember the images in the media.
Ad 5. Conclusion: it is unlikely (scientists never say 'excluded'). But I think a real disclaimer is 'in most situations'. So there are situations for which it is different? And how much difference does that make? And should measures be in balance with what they combat, or should the misery be reduced by at least 50%?
The main arguments lie in comparing Lockdown sweethearts Australia, New Zealand and the non-lockdown scum from Brazil, India.
How are Brazil, India, Australia, New Zealand doing now, six months later?
We look at the Covid mortality figures, more than six months later. I have added Europe as a reference.
Brazil, the terrifying example of Covid-19, does not distinguish itself strikingly from the rest of South America in terms of mortality (with few measures either) but, in fact, the mortality is close to that in the United States!
India, the other paragon of horror, has remarkably few deaths per capita. After the outbreaks in May-June, little has been added.
And then the two sweetest children in the class: Australia and New Zealand. They are still lockdowning, oppressing their population and somehow it is now their turn. If the developments of the last few months there continue for a while or repeat themselves again, which is very likely due to a lack of immunity, it is conceivable that they will still overtake India... the exemplary lockdowners then have more Covid deaths than the country that was so badly affected because it was not allowed to enjoy protection from lockdowns.
None of it is hard evidence. It is indicative of the mind-set that some scientists are guided by. And now let's hope that the immune systems of the Australians and New Zealanders will remain intact.
Although I read that you also train your immune system with tap water. Tap water is also not sterile, so the immune system is really trained if you don't encounter any viruses and bacteria. Really: a fact-checking science journalist wrote that, I believe.
