Lockdowns worked very poorly, analysts say

An analysis by economists at Johns Hopkins University finds that lockdowns had little effect and were counterproductive in terms of the damage done to economic activity.

Strong criticism of that study comes today from Jerry Davich, a Chicago Tribune columnist and freelance writer, who wrapped up his "analysis" by saying: "My conclusion to 'Johns Hopkins study' about ineffectiveness of lockdowns: It's as scientific as a Joe Rogan rant."

The prolific writer for the left-leaning newspaper has nothing in his various self-descriptions about scientific or economics credentials.

The three scholars found in their study, released earlier this month, that:

Of ... 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

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. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON
COVID-19 MORTALITY
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf