A peer-reviewed study published on 5 January in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation studied restrictive measures imposed to stop the spread of the coronavirus in ten major countries. Its conclusion:
“We do not find any significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs (non‐pharmaceutical interventions). Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.”
The study, titled, “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19,” compared the results of harsh lockdown policies in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the U.S. with two major countries, Sweden and South Korea, which allowed businesses to stay open and never forced stay-at-home restrictions.
Using a mathematical model, the four researchers from Stanford Medical College were able to determine that the government-imposed restrictions on business and basic social connections offered ”no clear, significant beneficial effect on case growth [infection rates] in any country.”
The researchers added, ”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.”
While acknowledging that no study can perfectly compare countries when it comes to viral transmission rates given the complexity of the issue, by using tested mathematical models, the medical researchers were able to determine, backed by peer-reviewed analysis, that “there is no evidence that more restrictive lockdowns contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, or the United States.”
But the researchers went even further, noting the data showed evidence that more restrictive measures led to an increase in the viral spread:
“It is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as in closed spaces.”
They also added the important conclusion that even if small benefits do exist from lockdown policies, they “do 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.”
Regarding “numerous harms of these aggressive measures,” on 29 April, the executive director of the UN World Food Program, David Beasley, warned, “There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.” He estimated over 100 million people could face starvation due to the global lockdowns.
In addition, evidence keeps growing that lockdowns are creating massive mental health issues from depression to suicide. (See our 12 January article, “LOCKDOWN BLUES: MILLIONS GOING MAD” and the 21 October BBC article, “Covid: Lockdown had ‘major impact’ on mental health.”)
TRENDPOST: As for locking people down, the curfews, etc., as we have continually reported in the Trends Journal, this past May, Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York State’s lockdown czar, said, “Overwhelmingly, the people were at home… We thought maybe they were taking public transportation, and we’ve taken special precautions on public transportation, but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”
Despite the overt failure of these lockdown laws, they persist, and, in many nations, those protesting them are arrested and fined for disobeying these draconian, unscientifically-based rules.
TRENDPOST: It should be noted that one of the co-authors of this study, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine and economics at Stanford, was among the scientists who published the “Great Barrington Declaration.” (See our 13 October article, “THE GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION: NO COVID FEAR.”)
This document encouraged governments around the world to end lockdown impositions, which including getting young people back to school while putting more protections in place for the elderly and those most vulnerable to the virus. The Great Barrington Declaration, which can be found online at https://gbdeclaration.org/ thus far has been signed by over 50,000 medical practitioners and public health scientists in 43 countries.