REPORT: COVID-19 Lockdowns Were A ‘Global Policy Failure Of Gigantic Proportions’ (VIDEO)

The Institute of Economic Affairs in London conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of several studies of the response to the pandemic and compared that to actual mortality rates, not computer models.

The results show that the mitigation measures touted by public health officials were far less effective at preventing deaths from COVID than they told us they would be — but they also came with a high cost.

The study concludes that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a “negligible effect” on COVID-19 mortality.

The Imperial College of London’s modeling estimated that lockdowns would save 2 million lives in the United States and over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom. The number of deaths prevented by an average lockdown was significantly lower — approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States.

It also adds that voluntary actions taken by individuals were more effective than government mandates.

The study also notes that the heavy-handed and largely ineffective lockdowns also came with significant economic and social costs:

• Stunted economic growth
• Large increases in public debt
• Rising inequality
• Damage to children’s education and health
• Reduced health-related quality of life
• Increased crime
• Threats to democracy and loss of freedom
• Damage to mental health

The study concludes that unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be “rejected out of hand” to control future pandemics.

Here are a few quotes from the authors of the study:

“This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality. It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social, and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.” — Professor Lars Jonung, Sweden, Lund University.

“Numerous misleading studies, driven by subjective models and overlooking significant factors like voluntary behavior changes, heavily influenced the initial perception of lockdowns as highly effective measures. Our meta-analysis suggests that when researchers account for additional variables, such as voluntary behavior, the impact of lockdowns becomes negligible.” — Jonas Herby, Copenhagen.

“When it comes to COVID, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned. The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the lives saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.” — Professor Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins University.

The esteemed Dr. John Campbell explains the report here: