As with all other lockdown policies imposed by political leaders around the world, there is no verifiable scientific evidence that curfews significantly slow the spread of the coronavirus.
An article published by The New York Times on 23 January confirms this in a sub-headline that reads, “A restriction more often used in natural disasters, or to quell unrest, has never been tested against a pathogen like the virus.”
No Evidence Curfews Work
As the writer of the 23 January Times article points out, “The virus thrives indoors, and clusters of infection are common in families and in households. So, one daunting question is whether forcing people into these settings for longer periods slows transmission—or accelerates it.”
The Times quotes Maria Polyakova, an economist at Stanford University, who said, “In general, we expect that staying at home mechanically slows the pandemic, as it reduces the number of interactions between people.”
“The trade-off is that the reduction in economic activity especially hurts many workers and their families in the large service sector of the economy.” She questions, “So is the curfew worth the price?
Not understanding the lockdown logic, Dr. Polyakova states, “Assuming that nightclubs and such are already closed down anyway, for instance, prohibiting people from going for a walk around the block with their family at night is unlikely to reduce interactions.”
Stay Home, Spread the Virus
The article goes on to confirm that stay-at-home orders accelerate the spread. In a study published in Science on 15 January titled “Transmission heterogeneities, kinetics, and controllability of SARS-CoV-2,” co-authored by epidemiologists and statisticians in both China and the U.S. and backed by over 60 links to medical and scientific resources, it states clearly and emphatically,
“The duration of exposure to an infected person combined with closeness and number of household contacts constituted the greatest risks for transmission, particularly when lockdown conditions prevailed. These findings could help in the design of infection control policies that have the potential to minimize both virus transmission and economic strain.”
Jon Zelner, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan, pulled the rug out from any defense of imposed curfews. He was quoted by The Times saying,
“With respect to curfews, I think that it is hard to understand what the positive impact of them is going to be… what I worry about with relatively vague or poorly reasoned orders is that it erodes the trust people need to have to follow these.”
TRENDPOST: Despite scientific evidence that curfews and lockdowns are counter-productive, many political leaders across the globe continue to impose them.
They haven’t learned the clear lesson revealed in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s botched orders last spring when he had to admit “shock” that his stay-at-home orders backfired and the majority of people entering hospitals with severe coronavirus reactions had been following his orders. (See our 28 July article, “STAY AT HOME, GET SICK.”)
