Lockdown 'INEFFECTIVE' against spread of COVID-19, may even increase risk to vulnerable populations, research claims
A Stanford University study claims mandatory stay-at-home orders and business closures have “no clear, significant beneficial effect” on Covid-19 case growth and may even lead to more frequent infections in nursing homes.
Researchers at Stanford University in California aimed to assess how tough lockdowns influence the growth in infections as compared to less restrictive measures.
They used data from England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the US, collected during the initial stages of the pandemic in the spring 2020. They compared the data from Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not introduce tough lockdowns at that time, with that from the other eight countries.
They found that introducing any restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions’ (NPIs) such as reduced working hours, working from home and social distancing helped curb the rise of infections in nine out of 10 study countries, except for Spain, where the effect was “non-significant.”
However, when they compared epidemic spreads in places that implemented less restrictive measures with those opting for a full-blown lockdown they found “no clear, significant beneficial effect” of the latter on the number of cases in any country.Also on rt.com The Casablanca exit plan: If you’ve got a brain and a wallet, there are some easy loopholes to avoid the UK’s Covid lockdown
The research goes on to suggest that empirical data from the later wave of infections shows that restrictive measures fail to protect vulnerable populations. “The proportion of COVID-19 deaths that occurred in nursing homes was often higher” under tough restrictions “rather than under less restrictive measures.” It also says that there's evidence suggesting that “sometimes under more restrictive measures, infections may be more frequent in settings where vulnerable populations reside relative to the general population.”
The research admits that lockdowns in early 2020 were justified because the disease was spreading rapidly and overwhelming health systems, and scientists or medics did not know what the mortality data of the virus was. However, it points at the potential harmful health effects of tough restrictions, such as hunger, health services becoming unavailable for non-Covid diseases, domestic abuse and mental health issues, and the effects of these on the economy mean that the benefits of the tough restrictions might be overrated and need to be studied carefully.
The researchers conclude by saying that although they couldn't exclude some “small benefits,” they failed to find any “significant benefits” of more restrictive measures on the spread of infection. They state that “similar reductions” may be achieved with “less restrictive interventions.”
An increasing number of countries have introduced lockdowns of various degrees recently, in response to surging numbers of infections, blamed on the new highly contagious strains of coronavirus.Also on rt.com British women fined for going on WALK, told by police that carrying tea is ‘classed as picnic’
England, the country where one of the new strains was detected, introduced a national lockdown last week with no set end date and is now considering further tightening the restrictions, as officials warn that “the next few weeks will be the worst of the pandemic.”
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!