Recently, I have had the pleasure of direct interaction, more so than usual, with progressive 20-somethings. I knew enough to expect a higher level of sensitivity regarding the pandemic, but was nonetheless surprised to hear first-hand the perspective among young and healthy people regarding COVID risk management generally, and specifically the need or effectiveness of government lockdown measures in terms of saving lives. I am not the first to notice that many young progressive adults enthusiastically embrace misguided lockdown policies for which they will bear the highest cost and from which they will benefit the least (if indeed anyone benefits). In fact, governments not inclined to manage the virus with top-down lockdown restrictions are viewed by 20-something progressives as callous and even murderous.
young progressive adults enthusiastically embrace misguided lockdown policies for which they will bear the highest cost and from which they will benefit the least
One would never know it if one’s primary news sources are CNN, NPR, Slate, Vox, etc, but there is scant scientific evidence that the lockdown measures save lives. This statement is supported by peer-reviewed research performed by Stanford University researchers, which concluded that “mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.” Indeed, Sweden, even after its second wave of virus deaths, remains typical among European countries in terms of deaths per million despite relying on voluntary mitigation measures. Most compelling, however, is the simple visual graphs showing the impacts of mask mandates on infection rates throughout the world here and here. These graphs definitely illustrate that mask mandates on the general population do not have any measurable impact on infection rate; note that these graphs evaluate mask mandates, not mask usage.
The reality is that, far from saving lives, lockdowns have caused or will cause more deaths worldwide than the virus itself, likely by an order of magnitude. Most of those deaths are from economic impacts, which are borne disproportionately by black and brown people in developing countries. We know from Worldometer.org that 2.1 million people are estimated to have died from the virus thus far. The United Nations estimated that funding shortfalls and supply chain issues due to economic impacts could see millions more die of hunger, and tens of million children will fall into extreme poverty. The UN estimates that 83-132 million more people will experience chronic hunger. UNICEF warns that economic disruptions will cause 2.1 million deaths of children under 5 in a 6-month period.
But even the direct health impacts from the lockdowns, related to isolation and to delayed diagnosis of other medical conditions, for example, will lead to a similar magnitude of deaths in this country as from the virus itself. Richard Sullivan, a professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy, said: “The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself over the next five years. The NYT estimated that there will be 1.4 million excess tuberculosis deaths, half a million excess HIV deaths, and 385,000 malaria deaths due to lockdowns. A study in Lancet concluded: “During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of excess death.” [53% and 123%, respectively] Suicide ideation has more than doubled among 18-25 year-olds according to CDC. Additional “deaths of despair” are estimated to be 27.6 to 154 thousand in US.
Of course, the virus would have caused severe economic impacts with or without lockdowns. However, it is important to consider the additional deaths caused by lockdown measures when evaluating whether they are “worth the cost.” Popular punditry generally compares the economic cost with the potential benefit in terms of people not getting infected and dying, without considering the secondary unintentional deaths caused by those same lockdown measures. Evidence suggests that lockdowns have had little effect on infection spread and that alternative strategies could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost. Individuals can be expected to finely tune their own risks and benefits much better than government, specifically to minimize their own health risk while also minimizing their own economic and non-Covid health impacts.
Many public health professionals, who after all must implement CYA measures after they led us down this path, are still defending lockdowns. Many scientists and medical professionals are not. Studies from USA and around the world have demonstrated conclusively that lockdowns have not mitigated the disease progression. The two lockdown measures that have made a significant difference are:
1. The decision by many Governors to force nursing homes to accept COVID patients. That decision alone is responsible for a significant percentage of the deaths from COVID in USA. Nobody knows exactly how many were killed by this misguided decision, but 2/3 of the COVID deaths in PA occurred in nursing homes.
2 Measures to protect and isolate vulnerable populations, namely the elderly, have been extremely effective where not impacted by #1.
COVID is a deadly disease that is extremely age-dependent in its severity and mortality. It is important to distinguish between Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Incidence Fatality Rate (IFR). CFR, which is simply the number of deaths divided by the number of positive tests, is easy to measure but not very meaningful since it depends on testing rates and characteristics. IFR is the number of deaths divided by the number of infections; this is meaningful but difficult to measure because nobody knows for sure how many people have had the disease without knowing it or being tested.
Here are the most current estimates of Incidence Fatality Rate (risk in entire population):
At my age, I have a 0.4% risk of dying if I contract COVID-19. This is about 4 times the risk of dying if I get the flu, but still not a risk that would normally cause me to drastically change my lifestyle or borrow tens of thousands of dollars from my granddaughter. My Mom, on the other hand, has a 15% chance of dying if she contracts the virus, so I do everything I can to minimize her risk while preventing her from being isolated.
Case Fatality Rate (risk among people who have tested positive) varies by region and over time based on testing regimes. However, CFR is also extremely age-dependent, as shown by the CDC and illustrated by this graph from OurWorldInData.org:
glad you asked what's on my mind ... 