A recent study is showcasing just how catastrophic the lockdowns actually were. The research reveals that COVID lockdowns claimed 20x more life years than they saved.
In a recent review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, it was discovered that COVID-19 lockdowns may have claimed 20 times more lives than they were purported to have saved.
The study’s authors (read below), from the Jerusalem College of Technology, based their conclusions on a thorough analysis of other pertinent, lockdown-related publications.
“In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth,” summarized the article, titled “Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?”
“The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past,” argue the researchers.
The team goes on to estimate how many lives are thought to have been lost as a result of the COVID-19 mitigation measure, which was strongly backed by Democrats and public health authorities like Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Mike Pence:
The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save.
The study also reveals the conflict between governments’ and international health organizations’ support for lockdowns and their position on the public health agenda prior to COVID-19.
“It should be mentioned that the same conclusions—no clear benefit of lockdowns in case of pandemic—were made by national and international bodies before COVID-19 emerged. Namely, several governments prepared detailed plans of response to influenza- like pandemics years ago—see the programs of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2007) and the Israeli Ministry of Health (2007),”
Researchers picked out the World Health Organization (WHO), which in October 2019 released a thorough 91-page preparedness plan that specifically stated that:
• social distancing measures “can be highly disruptive” and should be carefully weighted;
• travel-related measures are “unlikely to be successful”; “border closures may be considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics”;
• and contact tracing and quarantine of exposed individuals are not recommended in any circumstances.
The article adds that lockdowns did not just prove to be ineffective; rather, they also resulted in the deaths of those whom public health professionals had claimed to be safeguarding.
“The lockdown policies had a direct side effect of increasing mortality. Hospitals in Europe and USA were prepared to manage pretty small groups of highly contagious patients, while unprepared for a much more probable challenge—large-scale contagion. As a result, public health care facilities and nursing homes often became vehicles of contamination themselves—to a large extent because of the lockdown-based emergency policy implementation,” explained the paper, citing New York as an example.
“While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms leads to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic, as well as of the 1918–1920 H1N1 influenza type-A pandemic (the Spanish Flu) and numerous less-severe pandemics in the past,” concludes the paper.
The findings come in the wake of earlier research’ findings that lockdowns and other common COVID-19 mitigation strategies, like mask requirements, have significant downsides.
Read the study below: