Lockdown proponents often argue that, although case numbers sometimes decline in the absence of a lockdown (as in Sweden, South Dakota, Florida), case numbers always decline in the presence of one. Once you put a lockdown in place, they claim, the curve reaches its peak and the epidemic starts to retreat.
There are certainly many countries where a decline in case numbers has coincided with the imposition of a lockdown. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that one caused the other.
As the researcher Philippe Lemoine has argued, people start changing their behaviour voluntarily when they see deaths and hospitalisations rising. The government, meanwhile, feels an increasing need to “do something”, and the subsequent imposition of a lockdown happens to coincide with the peak of the infection curve.
Consistent with this account, there are several countries where a lockdown was imposed, but case numbers did not immediately decline; or if they did decline, they rose again while the lockdown was still in place. These examples constitute evidence against the claim that lockdowns have a substantial effect on the epidemic’s trajectory. Here I will present six.
It’s important to note that some countries went into lockdown all at once, whereas others built up restrictions gradually over several weeks. This raises the question of exactly how to define a lockdown. For the purpose of this analysis, I will rely on the Oxford Blavatnik School’s COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.
The dataset includes several measures of government restrictions. Each one is accompanied by a “flag” indicating whether the relevant restriction was applied to specific regions or the entire country. I will define the start of a lockdown as the first day on which there were mandatory workplace closures and a mandatory stay-at-home order in place for the entire country.
The first example is Israel, which went into lockdown on December 27th, but did not see the peak of its infection curve until January 17th.
The second example is Lebanon, which went into lockdown on November 14th, but did not see the peak of the curve until January 16th.
The third example is Slovakia, which went into lockdown on October 22nd, but did not see the peak of the curve until January 6th.
The fourth example is Slovenia, which went into lockdown on October 20th, but did not see the peak of the curve until January 10th.
The fifth example is Peru, which went into lockdown on March 16th, but did not see the peak of the curve until June 2nd.
The sixth example is Venezuela, which went into lockdown on September 28th, but did not see the peak of the curve until April 6th.
Note that, in every case, the lockdown measures were in place until after the peak of the curve. The fact that cases did not immediately decline, or proceeded to rise again (as in Venezuela), cannot therefore be blamed on the lifting of lockdown measures.
The evidence presented here is consistent with the many empirical studies finding that lockdowns do not substantially reduce deaths from COVID-19.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You need to contextualise the figures you use, which are from the period of heavy fighting during the Battle of Sievierodonetsk. Also, I would seriously question Arakhamia’s outlying figure of 500 per day. If you take that out, it averages 101, which is Reznikov’s number for the fighting during that period – and being the Minister of Defence, he ought to have the best information.
As for Russian deaths, general consensus amongst military types seems to be that one can take 10-20% off Ukraine’s figure of 71k, i.e. about 60k (e.g., Justin Bronk suggests this, while nevertheless strongly disputing the claimed numbers of aircraft lost). Given the obvious fact that Putin needed to mobilise a lot of troops (82,000 or possibly many more) to fill the gaps, and they’re no longer able to conduct offensive operations, this seems eminently plausible.
You may be right that 151 per day is too high, although I also gave a reason why it might be too low. As I said, the number of Ukrainian deaths is much harder to estimate.
As to the number of Russian deaths, the CIA estimated 15,000 on 20th July – which is highly consistent with my estimate of 20,000 by 9th September.
The early CIA figure is just one estimate which some consider quite dubious – there have been disagreements over that. Ben Wallace said on 5th September that the figure was 25k (equating to ~32k today), which is still way lower than the Ukrainian government estimate, but I tend to take all third party estimates with considerable scepticism, since it must be extremely difficult to make such estimates without the kind of knowledge that only low-level unit commanders could realistically provide up the chain of command on a day-to-day basis. I don’t imagine either the MoD or the CIA are trying to count the dead using satellite imagery – it’s probably just a collection of educated guessess based on the apparent scale of combat in various parts of the country.
The database compiled by Mediazona and the BBC News Russian service uses a clear and rigorous methodology. Its creators have said it may underestimate the true count by 40–60%. Which would mean total losses for the regular Russian armed forces are around 10,800.
The Economist claims the DPR militia “have faithfully documented their casualties”. Their total losses stand at 3,526.
Losses for the LPR militia and the Wagner mercenaries are harder to estimate. But it seems unlikely they total more than 11,000.
Attempts like those of Mediazona to estimate casualties using publicly available data such as “social media posts by relatives, reports in local media, and statements of the local authorities” would only get a fraction of the true figure, not 2/3rds of it in my opinion.
The Frenchman Paul Valéry said that war was a massacre of people who do not know each other for the benefit of people who know each other but do not massacre each other.
Back in the real world they are likely losing 20.000 a month. At one point the Uke’s were so desperate for men they conscripted women and criminals. They have bled through over 100 K in dead with 2-3x that injured. They outnumber Vlad the Droner’s forces by about 5:1 yet still cannot make any appreciable gains. If Vlad the PecFlexer’s forces were fully deployed, the Uke’s would be shattered in 2 months. Not even the endless American billions/trillions to the corrupt regime will save them. If the 2nd coming of Chinghis Khan fought like the Americans, the entire Uketopia would be rubble from endless carpet bombing the width and breadth of the country. Criminal xi Biden the election thieving money laundering pedo would have already declared victory on an aircraft carrrier off of San Diego. The Uke’s should be happy the Russians don’t fight like the criminal Americans.
“Run off pharma troll for stab #12 and hopefully you can contract myocarditis or similar and then tell us it was the too-many-eggs-syndrome-nothing to do with the stabs. I hear from the speed of science people, that Stab 17 is the real game changer. Just hang on for that.”
Why don’t you run along and do the same, you nasty piece of sh*t!
What is the point of this speculation. The answer in all cases is too many.
What I have read in alt-media streams is the UKrs have lost 100k dead, 2-3 time wounded.
The 300k currently being injected from RUS are actually being assigned in the main to roles not in the UKr theatre. Non-Theatre active RUS combat troops are being transferred (once replaced ) into the UKr theatre. Reason for this is in 2019, RUS went volunteer-only (non-conscript) and there was a deficit between out-going and in-coming resources.
Another issue probably lost….is who is operating all this latest NATO tech we have sent the Ukr? Because it cant be the UKrs given they have no training or familiarity and active fighting at the same time? How many loved ones in NATO countries are receiving that door-knock stating their husbands and sons were killed in a training accident? We dont here that at all.
I aint picking sides. Im trying to balance competing competent reports from the West and the alt-media. If UKr was kicking RUS butts, why so much equipment (Billions), and why the request for more? Dont make sense? I strongly suspect what we are being told is 180 from the real truth?
Reports I have read indicate that 80,000 of the recent intake have already been embedded with existing front line units throughout Ukraine . It is speculation on my part that these troops are replacing ones who left at the end of their 6 month extended contract.
It makes sense to mix new and experienced troops so that the new troops can benefit from the front-line experience of their compatriots.
Who is operating all the NATO tech? I suspect NATO troops..that’s why it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK really were operating the drones used in the Black Sea…
As you say, it’s hard to train people up quickly for these things….
As to how many troops, a few weeks ago I think it was the Washington Post said for every one Russian soldier killed or injured, five Ukrainian soldiers were killed or injured…..so a lot.
About two months ago Antony Blinken and LLoyd Austin went to Ukraine and vowed to “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian”…..I think we can safely say that to gain their own ends, they’ll also keep going to the last European as well…..
It concerns me when individuals use their status when they make personal comments. It is fair enough that the author of the piece identifies himself as the author, but when someone who happens to be an administrator identifies himself as such, when making comments that are nothing to do with administration, then I judge this as trying to gain some false authority for their view.
My guess is that it’s an automatic feature of the software they use to build and maintain the site.
Exactly. But it’s a fair point, and I’ll see if I can change it.
Thank you, Ian.
That was my suspicion too, however nothing stops someone setting up a private account. It is not even that payment is mandatory before comments are permitted
So both sides are underestimating their losses and overestimating the losses of their opponents. Gosh, who would have guessed that!!