They concluded that such policies are "ill-founded" and should be "rejected."
"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote in the abstract. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."
The meta-analysis, titled "A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality," began by identifying 18,590 studies that potentially could support the belief that lockdowns reduce COVID-19 mortality.
"After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis," the researchers wrote.
They then divided the studies into three groups, lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order studies and specific non-pharmaceutical intervention studies.
The conclusions by the Johns Hopkins researchers are consistent with other studies of hard data from around the world showing the lockdowns and other severe mitigation measures didn't stop the typical waxing and waning of a respiratory virus pandemic.
(...) WND
