Social media accounts in Canada and the U.S. are promoting a Johns Hopkins meta-analysis of COVID-19 lockdown strategies that found that lockdowns have “little to no public health effects.” The study has not undergone peer review, and its authors are economists, not public health or epidemiology experts. The study uses a sweeping definition of “lockdown” that includes any COVID-19 safety measure other than vaccination, including masking and social distancing policies. The study also excluded from its analysis all studies that examined the impact of COVID-19 safety measures on disease transmission and hospitalization rates, focusing instead on mortality.
Recommendation:
Passive Response Read More +
Criticism of COVID-19 safety measures, including masking, social distancing, and lockdowns, has been widespread. When community transmission is high, COVID-19 precautions are central to limiting the spread of the virus. Thoroughly examining all public health measures employed during this pandemic, from a multitude of perspectives inside and outside public health, is necessary in order to better respond and prepare for infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. At present, there is general agreement among relevant experts that the lack of a uniform response in the U.S. is mostly responsible for the country’s extraordinarily high death rate compared to other wealthy nations. Pandemic response in the U.S. has largely been placed on states and cities, with immunization strategies, contact tracing, quarantines and lockdowns, masking, and other measures varying widely state-by-state. Emphasizing that these measures are important public health tools, and that they help to protect the most vulnerable members of the community, including those who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated, is recommended. Fact Checking Source(s):
Sign Up for Public Health Alerts
About Us
Learn More