I decided to make this post to ensure that we have some sort of historical record both for myself and anyone who visits this site. It goes hand in hand with all the other post on the unnecessary pandemic. The harms done will last for many years.
Below are 18 published papers finding that lockdowns had little or no effect along with some main points from each. It is shown that that will do more harm both now and in the long term. The conclusions and observation are very clear. There are many more studies and articles on the lack of effectiveness of the LOCKDOWN paradigm.
I would like to thank Brumby from twitter @the_brumby and all the scientists and experts who have researched, collated, worked many hours and written up all their findings. This should all help to debunk the idea that lockdowns work and hopefully we will not see lockdowns used ever again in this way. However leaders in most countries that used this method for control of the virus have invested a lot in its implementation including laws and police ensuring the public adhered to law. So how will they turnaround and say it was wrong?
This 20 minute video by Nick Hudson summaries the background history to why lockdowns came into being and why lockdowns were never part of pandemic plans up until 2020.
There is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions ( lockdowns ) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.
Government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.
Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.
Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions become effective
the decline in infections in England…began before full lockdown. Such a scenario would be consistent with Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown.
The UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behaviour of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).
Given that the evidence reveals that the Corona disease declines even without a complete lockdown, it is recommendable to reverse the current policy and remove the lockdown
Stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact
These strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighbouring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic. Since the full lockdown strategies are shown to have no impact on the epidemic’s slowdown, one should consider their potentially high inherent death toll as a net loss of human lives.
The model does not support [the] estimate that lockdown reduced the case reproduction number R by 81% or that more than three million deaths were averted by non-pharmaceutical interventions.
The case of Sweden, where the authors find the reduction in transmission to have been only moderately weaker than in other countries despite no lockdown having occurred, is prima facie evidence.
General social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70 only Strategies that minimise deaths involve the infected fraction primarily being in the low risk younger age groups—for example, focusing stricter social distancing measures on care homes where people are likely to die rather than schools where they are not. The results presented in the report suggested that the addition of interventions restricting younger people might actually increase the total number of deaths from covid-19.
We show that [lockdown] is modestly superior in saving lives compared to [focused protection], but with tremendous costs to prevent one case of death. This might result in overwhelming economic effects that are expected to increase future death toll.
For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.
Current policy can be misdirected and can therefore have long and even short-term negative effects on human welfare and thus result in not actually minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities), especially in the long run.
Restrictions imposed by the pandemic (e.g., stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (e.g., drug overdoses). In 14 states, more than 50% of excess deaths were attributed to underlying causes other than COVID-19; these included California (55% of excess deaths) and Texas (64% of excess deaths)
[the] President has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events…Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe-just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million
This study shows that the virus is already here, and we must find ways of living with it such that it caused no or minimal human and socioeconomic losses in Nigeria as a whole going back to the lockdown should never again be