Researchers at John Hopkins University recently released the results of a study (technically a mathematical meta-analysis of 34 related studies) taking a deep look into the mass lockdown strategies implemented both here in the U.S. and in European countries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic back in the spring of 2020.
To get down to the meat of it, researchers found that lockdown efforts only succeeded in reducing the COVID death rate by 0.2 percent. Basically, the study’s findings suggest that for every 500 people who died of COVID during that initial wave, only one life was saved on average by locking everything down.
“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the researchers wrote. “In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
It must be noted, however, that this study (which, by the way, can be found and downloaded online) has not yet been peer reviewed, and there have been some experts who have already made public statements criticizing certain aspects of it. Critics point to the fact that the study was conducted by a group of economists, rather than epidemiologists, and that its results contradict findings from some other studies.
But if the study is accurate (or even in the general neighborhood of being accurate), that would be hard to even think about. With trillions lost out of the economy, millions of jobs cut, thousands of businesses driven out of business, significant educational losses for most of the school-age children in this country, and other negative economic, social, public health, and mental health impacts that will probably be felt for years and decades to come – I would sure like to think we got a bigger return for all that than what this study suggests.
Admittedly, I’m not really qualified to say much about the accuracy of this study one way or another. Honestly, I hate to think that it might be right (or even partially right) – but, if it is, then that’s something we all need to know going forward, painful and disturbing as that might be.
But, so far, it’s been crickets from most of the national mainstream news media on this study, while, of course, conservative media outlets are making all kinds of noise about both the study and the failure of those other media outlets to cover it. And, sadly, that’s pretty typical of the strange, almost tribal way that, not just the media, but Americans in general have been dividing themselves up over all things COVID these past two years.
Unless you’ve been in a coma or living in a cave since early 2020, then you’re probably aware that this pandemic has been and continues to be politicized and weaponized at every turn in what may go down in the books as the biggest information/narrative war in American history.
Still, regardless of whether this study ultimately gets upheld or debunked (or a bit of both) by the experts, I am hoping that there is at least some public conversation about it, and I hope that maybe opens the door to more unrestrained public discourse and helps to burst some of these COVID narrative bubbles so many people seem to be living inside.
Though I know it’s not likely to happen (at least not anytime soon), I would love to see every aspect of this pandemic and everything that has been done (or not done) in response to it pulled out into the full light of day, mercilessly scrutinized in every detail from all sides with absolutely no regard for political optics or professional egos, and opened up wide for free public debate without the slightest attempt at censorship or spin by anyone.
Now I’m well aware that there have been all kinds of crazy and dangerous examples of misinformation circulating out there, and that has caused a great deal of harm – which has prompted many in the public and the private sectors to take a controlling, tightfisted approach when it comes to public information and discourse on COVID-related issues.
But there have also been quite a few rational, data-based challenges to “official” COVID narratives offered up by very credible and credentialed professionals, and too often they have been silenced by the self-appointed gatekeepers of public speech and denounced out of hand by people in high positions. And that, I would venture, has also caused harm – particularly if this study turns out to be anywhere near accurate in its assessment.
It’s not like there weren’t some very smart people with impressive titles in front of their names who were very vocal in their criticism of lockdowns early on in the pandemic, as well as many who suggested alternative approaches that, in hindsight, seem to make a lot of sense now. If I remember correctly, those people weren’t treated very well by some high-profile public officials and members of the news media at the time.
And it’s not like there aren’t some very credible people who are currently questioning the scientific justification and basic logic behind a lot of the COVID measures still being implemented by many government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. Those people aren’t being treated with much respect either.
Ideally, science should involve unlimited access to all relevant data, unfettered examination and analysis of that data, and open discourse and debate about what the data means and what should be done about it.
But if it involves cherry-picking data to support predetermined conclusions, seeking to control the public conversation, shutting down open and honest debate, and smearing anyone who doesn’t fall in line, all to serve established media narratives and/or political objectives – well, that’s not really science.
That’s something else entirely.
