Sunday, January 17, 2021

ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-AT-HOME AND BUSINESS CLOSURE EFFECTS ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 (Or LOCKDOWNS DON'T W0RK)

The following is from the Summary of an article by John Ionnidis et al. of Stanford University that has been accepted for publication in the European Journal of Clinical Observation.

[We] fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in the control of COVID in early 2020,” the study concludes. “We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.
 
In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical 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,” they write. “By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that more restrictive NPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond less restrictive NPIs. While modest decreases in daily growth (under 30%) cannot be excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to more restrictive NPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.”

The direction of the effect size in most scenarios point towards an increase in the case growth rate, though these estimates are only distinguishable from zero in Spain (consistent with non-beneficial effect of lockdowns),” the study continues. “Only in Iran do the estimates consistently point in the direction of additional reduction in the growth rate, yet those effects are statistically indistinguishable from zero. While it is hard to draw firm conclusions from these estimates, they are consistent with a recent analysis that identified increase transmission and cases in Hunan, China during the period of stay-at-home orders from increased intra-household density and transmission.In other words, it is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as closed spaces.

Related:

‘Catastrophically wrong’: German court declares regional lockdown UNCONSTITUTIONAL in ‘politically explosive’ decision


COVID Lockdowns Will Result In 1 Million Excess US Deaths Over Next 15 Years, Scientists Find

Direct and Indirect Impacts of COVID-19 on Excess Deaths and Morbidity: 

 This is a deeply obscure Government report, which however, reaches a startling conclusion. It is estimates that something like half the "Quality Adjusted Life Years" or QALY's, lost in the UK as a result of Covid19 will have been due to, not the illness caused by the virus, but the adverse effects of either lockdowns or Covid-related changes in the healthcare system.

Taken together with the findings of Ioannides and others (see above), it would seem to have been better had governments done nothing whatever in response to the Covid pandemic, as was the case in Sweden, at least until the government was panicked into an interventionist policy. This conclusion will, of course, never be acknowledged in view of the harm to human welbeing, not to mention the astronomical economic cost, due to actions already taken by most Western governments. 

No comments:

Post a Comment