The authors examined almost 19,000 studies to find the ones with the best data and measurement periods. Of the 186 nations followed by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, all but one––the Indian Ocean island nation of Comoros––imposed at least one NPI by the end of March 2020. The authors note that lockdowns were virtually universal. They concentrate on the early days of the pandemic, spanning March to June of 2020, when the restrictions were most severe. That process provided the most comprehensive view to date of the true effectiveness of lockdowns. Instead, they examined all of the academic literature on the topic, and distilled the findings of the most convincing papers. The authors didn’t collect their own data. The list excludes voluntary measures such as social distancing, as well as government-sponsored testing and vaccination campaigns.
They include restrictions on travel, school closures, bans on international travel, restrictions on movement within a country’s borders, and mask mandates. The study defines lockdowns as “compulsory non-pharmaceutical interventions,” or what’s commonly known as NPIs.
But their academic standing, the vast quantities of data they analyzed, and their sophisticated methodology make a strong case for their conclusions.
U OF CHICAGO LOCKDOWN FREE
The coauthors are clearly free marketers. Hanke served on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, and has long been one of the world’s leading counselors to developing nations on monetary policy, having helped pioneer dollarization in Ecuador and El Salvador and held cabinet-level positions in Lithuania and Montenegro. The third is Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University. Lars Jonung is a former economic adviser for the EU who for over a decade headed Sweden’s Fiscal Policy Council, the agency that assesses the results of the nation’s economic policies. Jonas Herby is special adviser at the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen. Two authors of the study are Scandinavian. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” As the report states, “This meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns had little or no health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. That figure––and it’s so small as to be statistically questionable––simply wasn’t worth the costs, in their view.
Their conclusion: Lockdowns reduced mortalities by a minuscule 0.2%. But now, a new analysis by three prominent economists that surveys all empirical data from the academic literature measuring the relationship between death and lockdowns finds that forced restrictions didn’t work. A widely cited epidemiological paper by researchers at Imperial College London predicted that such measures as bans on travel and shelter-in-place mandates would reduce mortality from the virus by 98%. When the COVID outbreak began in early 2020, a number of studies predicted that government-imposed lockdowns would prove highly effective in preventing deaths.
0 kommentar(er)
