More data: Lockdowns did nothing to slow COVID
It was always about power: A review of 87 regions worldwide has now found that the lockdowns imposed in panic in the past year did nothing to slow COVID, while contributing massively to economic devastation and increased mortality associated directly to that devastation.
Both a restrictive and global analysis were performed in the study. In the restrictive analysis, direct comparison of two regions took place if three of the four following conditions were similar: population density, percentage of urban population, human development index, and total area of the region. The global comparisons included regions and countries worldwide.
In the restrictive analysis, only one comparison (or 3 percent)—between the state of Roraima, Brazil, and the state of Rondonia, Brazil—was significant, while in the global comparisons, only 1.6 percent were significantly different. “Indeed,” the researchers wrote, “the global comparison confirmed the results found in the restrictive one; only 1.6 percent of the death rates could be explained by staying at home.”
Put another way, in about 98 percent of the comparisons, there was “no evidence that the number of deaths/million is reduced by staying at home.” The findings were backed up by real-world examples taking place at the time.
Even if this study had found that there was a five percent reduction in COVID deaths resulting from lockdowns, that number would not have justified the damage done to lives, businesses, and the health of millions because they were trapped in their homes, could not work, or see their doctor for other health concerns.
It was always about power: A review of 87 regions worldwide has now found that the lockdowns imposed in panic in the past year did nothing to slow COVID, while contributing massively to economic devastation and increased mortality associated directly to that devastation.
Both a restrictive and global analysis were performed in the study. In the restrictive analysis, direct comparison of two regions took place if three of the four following conditions were similar: population density, percentage of urban population, human development index, and total area of the region. The global comparisons included regions and countries worldwide.
In the restrictive analysis, only one comparison (or 3 percent)—between the state of Roraima, Brazil, and the state of Rondonia, Brazil—was significant, while in the global comparisons, only 1.6 percent were significantly different. “Indeed,” the researchers wrote, “the global comparison confirmed the results found in the restrictive one; only 1.6 percent of the death rates could be explained by staying at home.”
Put another way, in about 98 percent of the comparisons, there was “no evidence that the number of deaths/million is reduced by staying at home.” The findings were backed up by real-world examples taking place at the time.
Even if this study had found that there was a five percent reduction in COVID deaths resulting from lockdowns, that number would not have justified the damage done to lives, businesses, and the health of millions because they were trapped in their homes, could not work, or see their doctor for other health concerns.