71796
Had enough? Join the Alliance of British Drivers. Had enough? Join the Alliance of British Drivers. Had enough? Join the Alliance of British Drivers.
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

New Paper Claims Lockdowns Do Not Cause More Health Harms Than They Prevent, but It Misses the Big Picture

by Noah Carl
21 July 2021 11:56 AM

A new paper in BMJ Global Health purports to debunk lockdown sceptics’ claim that “the cure is worse than the disease”. However, it misses the big picture; in fact, it hasn’t shifted my priors one jot.

The paper contains no new data or analysis. Rather, it comprises a review of the existing literature. The authors focus on the claim that “lockdowns cause more health harms than COVID-19 by examining their impacts on mortality, routine health services, global health programmes and suicide and mental health”.

In other words, they attempt to show that lockdowns do not cause more health harms than they prevent. Notice: this is not the same as showing that lockdowns pass an overall cost-benefit test. Even if lockdowns were a net positive for public health, they could still be a massive net negative for society (taking into account their effects on the economy, education and civil liberties).

The strongest argument the authors make (with which I was already familiar) is that excess mortality in countries like Australia and New Zealand – which managed to contain the virus – was zero or negative last year. Since these countries did not experience an epidemic of COVID-19, but did see weeks or even months of lockdown, the lack of excess mortality suggests that lockdowns themselves do not cause many deaths.  

However, some lockdown sceptics would argue that – even if lockdowns don’t cause many deaths in the short-term – they do cause more deaths in the long-term, via missed cancer screenings, drug overdoses etc. And here the authors are much less persuasive.

They concede that “the connection between lockdowns and missed contact with health systems is very well established”. However, they claim this association “may be related to lack of capacity of healthcare services or impacts of the pandemic itself rather than measures taken by governments”.

There is “no doubt”, the authors admit, “that global health programmes have been disrupted”. But they argue such disruptions were caused by “multiple complex direct and indirect consequences of COVID-19, not just stay-at-home orders”.

So they acknowledge that lockdowns do have harmful long-term effects. And given that those long-term effects are yet to be quantified, the authors have little basis for concluding that lockdowns are “unlikely to be causing harms more extreme than the pandemic itself”.

But this is mostly academic, since – as noted above – the positive health effects of lockdown could be massively outweighed by impacts on the economy, education and civil liberties. Society has functions other than simply extending people’s lives for as long as possible. If it did not, we’d spend a much higher fraction of GDP on healthcare, and we’d ban alcohol, smoking and extreme sports.

Moreover, the authors set up a false dichotomy between lockdowns on the one hand and an “unmitigated epidemic” on the other. Yet I and most other lockdown sceptics weren’t in favour of simply “letting the virus rip”. Rather, we backed a focused protection strategy – like the one outlined in the Great Barrington Declaration.

Outside of countries that managed to contain the virus, there is little evidence that lockdowns have substantially reduced mortality from COVID-19. And in the West, all the countries that did achieve containment are small, less dense and/or geographically peripheral – basically Norway, Finland and a handful of islands.

In this regard, the authors neglect to consider any countervailing evidence. For example, they claim that “government interventions have a strong impact on COVID-19 cases and deaths”, citing three studies, including the heavily criticised paper by Flaxman et al. But they don’t mention any of the studies finding little or no relationship between lockdowns and mortality.

They also claim that Sweden – which took the most relaxed approach of any Western country – had “large numbers of excess deaths throughout the pandemic”. Yet if they’d looked at age-adjusted excess mortality, and had taken account of the “dry tinder” effect, they’d know that Sweden did not have an exceptionally bad year.

The authors of the BMJ Global Health paper set out to show that the health benefits of lockdowns outweigh the harms. However, all they really prove is something that most of us already knew – lockdowns do not cause many deaths in the short term.

When we consider things like disruption to vaccination programs in the developing world (which the authors concede were at least partly due to lockdowns) it’s not at all clear that any health benefits will outweigh the long-term harms.

What’s more, available evidence suggests the costs of the U.K.’s lockdowns almost certainly outweighed the benefits, and a focused protection strategy could have saved more lives with far less collateral damage.  

Tags: Excess deathsLockdown harmsSweden

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Mandatory Face Masks and Advice to Work From Home Should Be Reintroduced to Keep Figures “Under Control”, Say SAGE Scientists

Next Post

The Great Betrayal

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

 

DONATE

PODCAST

Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Toby’s Appearance on the 77th Brigade’s Watch List, the Scrubbing of the Internet After the Pfizer Sting and the Trans Insanity Unfolding in Scotland

by Will Jones
31 January 2023
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks

“If More People Stood Up and Said Something Then This Would All Stop”: Actor Matthew Marsden Defends Declining Covid Vaccine Despite it Derailing His Career

6 February 2023
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

7 February 2023
by Will Jones

Government Refuses to Investigate What’s Behind the Thousands of Excess Deaths

7 February 2023
by Dr Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson

RFK Jr Sues BBC and Big Media Companies for Hobbling Online Rivals Via ‘Trusted News Initiative’

7 February 2023
by Chris Morrison

Why I Won’t Talk to ‘Fact Checkers’ About Our Mask Study

6 February 2023
by Dr Tom Jefferson

News Round-Up

33

Government Refuses to Investigate What’s Behind the Thousands of Excess Deaths

20

RFK Jr Sues BBC and Big Media Companies for Hobbling Online Rivals Via ‘Trusted News Initiative’

14

“If More People Stood Up and Said Something Then This Would All Stop”: Actor Matthew Marsden Defends Declining Covid Vaccine Despite it Derailing His Career

14

More Support For Liz Truss’s Contention That Market Turmoil Following Mini-Budget was Partly Due to Incompetence of Bank of England

11

Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya and Colleagues Demand a Full Inquiry into America’s Disastrous Covid Response

7 February 2023
by Will Jones

Dr. Carl Heneghan Interviews Dr. Tom Jefferson About His Major New Study Showing Masks Have No Clear Effect

6 February 2023
by Dr Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson

Why I Won’t Talk to ‘Fact Checkers’ About Our Mask Study

6 February 2023
by Dr Tom Jefferson

My New Interview With Andrew Bridgen MP

6 February 2023
by Nick Dixon

West Blocked Ukraine Peace Deal, Says Former Israeli PM

5 February 2023
by Noah Carl

POSTS BY DATE

July 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jun   Aug »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment