Johns Hopkins Study - Lockdowns Ineffective

I wanted to write about this sooner, but it took me until yesterday to find a link to an interesting study published by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise. Before I was able to locate it, I read all sorts of news articles from conservative and liberal pundits. They are experts at everything without reading anything. I preferred waiting so I could at least read it, and then try to break it down for you.  

As for my own biases, readers of this blog should know I support and encourage vaccines. I agree they should be mandatory among healthcare workers, but generally oppose vaccine mandates in other fields. I have no problem with face mask mandates because they are a minor inconvenience and no one likes to look at my face anyway.  I also have no problem with social distancing because that's always how it's been for me. I'm a miserable bastard. People tend to keep their distance.  

While I encourage vaccines (a friend of mine who refused to get vaccinated died recently from COVID-19), long-time readers of this blog know I was highly critical of Governor Tom Wolf's pandemic lockdown.  He applied a cleaver to a problem that required a scalpel. He gave no no consideration to how he was hurting the unemployed and self-employed, most of whom waited several months before getting a dime. He closed the state offices designed to help people at the time they were needed most. He gave no thought to children deprived of meaningful education. Nor did he consider the increases in suicide  and drug use. Wolf and Rachel Levine, a pediatrician and not an epidemiologist, engaged in aegrescit medendo. We are still reeling from all the predictable results, from hoarding to supply shortages to inflation. So what does the Johns Hopkins Study (it's actually an analysis of numerous studies) say?  

First, it is written by three economists. While they obviously would be unable to treat your broken ankle, these are precisely the kind of people who can crunch the numbers with a focus on the economics, not public health. 

Second, they coin a new phrase, at least for me. They refer to lockdowns as something that is "bioplausible," i.e. something that on the surface seems to make sense. It does seem logical that shutting everyone in their home would reduce spread. But as they note from the data, bioplausibility and reality are two different things. 

Third, this analysis is based on a review of thousands of studies, in which 24 were set aside for more detailed analysis. It included what was going on in 186 different countries. 

Fourth, lockdowns in Europe and the US only reduced OVID-19 mortality by 0.2%. Ironically, as more stringent measures were imposed, deaths actually increased slightly. (This could be because the stringent measures were put in place too late)

Fifth, where lockdowns did result in negative economic and social impacts in places where they were imposed. Thus, the study concludes "lockdown policies are ill founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument." 

Sixth, the analysis excludes early lockdowns, which I find a bit odd. The earlier you impose a lockdown, the more likely it would be that you'd mitigate the spread.  But in the US and Europe, most lockdown  orders came after it was too late to stop spread. I think this study would be better had it included places that were much quicker than most of the US in imposing lockdowns. 

Seventh, the analysis only looks at deaths, not new cases or hospitalizations.  

Overall, I find this Monday morning quarterback study to be quite interesting. My takeaway is that, to be effective, a lockdown must be very early and very stringent. And that's the problem. No one notices an infectious virus until it's too late for a lockdown to be effective.