The paper, by three researchers affiliated with libertarian think tanks, concluded that lockdowns did not significantly reduce the death rate during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020. But the study, a so-called “meta-analysis” that compiles dozens of individual studies, is fraught with problems, according to other researchers. “The study has some methodological issues that make the conclusion not reliable. So there is a high risk of possible bias,” says Adrian Lison, PhD student and infectious disease researcher at ETH Zurich. “And as the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, we believe it does not really add reliable new knowledge to the body of knowledge, so we recommend against using the fairly strong conclusions in this review in policy.” The paper was circulated among New Brunswick Department of Health officials in early February. It has not been published in an academic journal. Since the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, Adrian Lison, an infectious disease researcher, recommends that it not be used to revise the policy. (Submitted by Adrian Lison) Lockdowns “have little to no public health impact” but huge economic costs, he says. They are “baseless and should be rejected as a pandemic policy tool.” Health department spokesman Adam Bowie said officials are looking at data “from a lot of different studies” as well as epidemiologists in the province when making decisions. “A recommendation from Public Health to introduce or remove any health mandate would never be based on any study or report,” he said. The meta-analysis “would be just one source of information under consideration,” he said, though he did not identify other studies they used. Kathleen Gadd of the citizens’ group Protect our Province, which obtained the study through a Right to Information request, says it was the only so-called academic study the province submitted. “The fact that they didn’t give any more papers says a lot,” he said. “If other studies and papers and peer-reviewed evidence were being used to inform the removal of the mandatory mandate, it would be time to give that information to the public.”
Using the blanket term ‘lockdown’ is ‘dangerous’, researcher says
Among the flaws critics have identified is the paper’s use of the blanket term “lockdown” for a range of policies, from stay-at-home orders to cover-up orders. That makes it difficult to measure the impact of individual restrictions, says Lison, who authored a rebuttal published on the Social Science Research Network website. He says it’s “dangerous in a systematic review to use such a broad term, because if you jump to conclusions at the end, there’s a big risk that people will misinterpret your findings.” The paper also measures death rates without considering other effects, such as reduced transmission and the reduced impact of hospitalizations on the health care system. Lison says transmission is a better measure of the impact of the lockdown because it is more immediately affected by the restrictions, while hospitalization and death occur after a delay.
A health official called the newspaper’s conclusions “interesting”
The province lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. The 60-page paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” was the only research study included in the 200 pages sent to the PoP group when it requested documents related to the decision. In an email on February 4, 2022, Nina van der Pluijm, the director of welfare, legislation and standards at the department, sent the study to several colleagues, noting, “Interesting information about the effectiveness of the lock-down.” She noted her conclusion that the average lockdown reduced mortality by only 0.2%. Gadd, a former health sciences librarian, says “quite a number” of people with expertise in universities and health authorities could have provided staff with better studies. “There is no sign that information professionals, such as health science librarians, were involved in these very important decisions being made about the health of New Brunswickers,” he said. “There is a large body of high-quality peer-reviewed evidence that has been completely ignored by those in power about how to manage the pandemic.”
The paper was criticized as “unbalanced” because it excluded other studies
The meta-analysis, published in January, synthesizes the findings of 34 separate studies. The authors started with hundreds of studies, but reviewed most of them. “Unfortunately this review has only focused on a very small subset of analysis … and has excluded a large part of the total body evidence, the overall epidemiological research, so it’s also rather unbalanced,” Lison said. Dr. Seth Flaxman, professor of computer science at the University of Oxford, called the meta-analysis “fundamentally flawed” because it excluded studies rooted in epidemiology. Researchers at Imperial College London said in June 2020 that lockdowns in the first wave of the pandemic likely prevented 3.1 million deaths in 11 European countries. New Brunswick lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Another study estimated that lockdowns in six countries, including the US and China, prevented or delayed 530 million cases of COVID-19. “It’s just problematic to exclude the majority of available research, and there’s a risk that your review will become very unbalanced and unrepresentative,” Lison said. “Of course, there is still some uncertainty and many open questions, but there is already substantial evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions overall.”
Writers tied to libertarian think tanks
The authors are not epidemiologists or public health experts, and PoP has emphasized their connections to libertarian think tanks that oppose most government interventions in society. “The authors do not represent the fields of study that apply to epidemiology, public health, disease transmission, these kinds of fields that we should be looking to for information about our response to the pandemic,” Gandt said. Co-author Jonas Herby, an economist at the Center for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, is a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, which calls itself promoting “pure liberty and private governance,” with government “sharply limited.” Another co-author, Steve Hanke, is a fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute who has referred to the lockdowns and orders as “cracking the fascist whip.” Jonas Herby, co-author of the paper, says most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing rather than lockdown requirements. (CBC) In an interview, Herby acknowledged the conservative leanings of the writers and said he framed the question they wanted to ask the paper. But their research method was correct, he added. He said the meta-analysis focused on deaths because there weren’t many studies available on hospitalizations. Regarding criticism that the authors used the broad term “lockdown” for a range of different restrictions, Herby said that’s why the 0.2 percent reduction in mortality is based on an “average” lockdown. “I think it’s bad science to say your science is bad just because you have a different political view than I do.”
The revised version shows a greater reduction in deaths
The paper’s three authors published a revised version in May. It recalculates the reduction in deaths caused by lockdowns as 3.2 percent — still lower than other studies, but 16 times higher than the 0.2 percent estimate in the first edition. Mask mandates had the biggest effect, reducing mortality from COVID-19 by 18.7%, he says. The authors say what matters is not specific figures, but the fact that the number of lives saved by lockdowns “is far short and far” from what epidemiologists, politicians and the media have promised. Most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing, not lockdown requirements, Herby says. People changed their behavior voluntarily in response to a threat, he says. “The question is, can lockdowns foster this behavior change? I think they can, but the effect is very limited.” The new version includes a statement that it “doesn’t mean lockdowns don’t work. “It simply suggests that the more lenient lockdowns had essentially the same effect on mortality as the stricter lockdowns. Since no country did anything, we cannot rule out that some NPI would be required, eg to incentivize voluntary behavior changes.” “ Leeson said he found the defense of the authors of the meta-analysis “largely unconvincing” and said the revised version did not change his view that the paper should not be used by governments as policy advice. “Most of the problems of the first version remain,” he said.
title: “The Flawed Findings About The Lockdowns Fueled The Province S Decision To End The Orders Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-28” author: “Evelyn Cooper”
The paper, by three researchers affiliated with libertarian think tanks, concluded that lockdowns did not significantly reduce the death rate during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020. But the study, a so-called “meta-analysis” that compiles dozens of individual studies, is fraught with problems, according to other researchers. “The study has some methodological issues that make the conclusion not reliable. So there is a high risk of possible bias,” says Adrian Lison, PhD student and infectious disease researcher at ETH Zurich. “And as the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, we believe it does not really add reliable new knowledge to the body of knowledge, so we recommend against using the fairly strong conclusions in this review in policy.” The paper was circulated among New Brunswick Department of Health officials in early February. It has not been published in an academic journal. Since the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, Adrian Lison, an infectious disease researcher, recommends that it not be used to revise the policy. (Submitted by Adrian Lison) Lockdowns “have little to no public health impact” but huge economic costs, he says. They are “baseless and should be rejected as a pandemic policy tool.” Health department spokesman Adam Bowie said officials are looking at data “from a lot of different studies” as well as epidemiologists in the province when making decisions. “A recommendation from Public Health to introduce or remove any health mandate would never be based on any study or report,” he said. The meta-analysis “would be just one source of information under consideration,” he said, though he did not identify other studies they used. Kathleen Gadd of the citizens’ group Protect our Province, which obtained the study through a Right to Information request, says it was the only so-called academic study the province submitted. “The fact that they didn’t give any more papers says a lot,” he said. “If other studies and papers and peer-reviewed evidence were being used to inform the removal of the mandatory mandate, it would be time to give that information to the public.”
Using the blanket term ‘lockdown’ is ‘dangerous’, researcher says
Among the flaws critics have identified is the paper’s use of the blanket term “lockdown” for a range of policies, from stay-at-home orders to cover-up orders. That makes it difficult to measure the impact of individual restrictions, says Lison, who authored a rebuttal published on the Social Science Research Network website. He says it’s “dangerous in a systematic review to use such a broad term, because if you jump to conclusions at the end, there’s a big risk that people will misinterpret your findings.” The paper also measures death rates without considering other effects, such as reduced transmission and the reduced impact of hospitalizations on the health care system. Lison says transmission is a better measure of the impact of the lockdown because it is more immediately affected by the restrictions, while hospitalization and death occur after a delay.
A health official called the newspaper’s conclusions “interesting”
The province lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. The 60-page paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” was the only research study included in the 200 pages sent to the PoP group when it requested documents related to the decision. In an email on February 4, 2022, Nina van der Pluijm, the director of welfare, legislation and standards at the department, sent the study to several colleagues, noting, “Interesting information about the effectiveness of the lock-down.” She noted her conclusion that the average lockdown reduced mortality by only 0.2%. Gadd, a former health sciences librarian, says “quite a number” of people with expertise in universities and health authorities could have provided staff with better studies. “There is no sign that information professionals, such as health science librarians, were involved in these very important decisions being made about the health of New Brunswickers,” he said. “There is a large body of high-quality peer-reviewed evidence that has been completely ignored by those in power about how to manage the pandemic.”
The paper was criticized as “unbalanced” because it excluded other studies
The meta-analysis, published in January, synthesizes the findings of 34 separate studies. The authors started with hundreds of studies, but reviewed most of them. “Unfortunately this review has only focused on a very small subset of analysis … and has excluded a large part of the total body evidence, the overall epidemiological research, so it’s also rather unbalanced,” Lison said. Dr. Seth Flaxman, professor of computer science at the University of Oxford, called the meta-analysis “fundamentally flawed” because it excluded studies rooted in epidemiology. Researchers at Imperial College London said in June 2020 that lockdowns in the first wave of the pandemic likely prevented 3.1 million deaths in 11 European countries. New Brunswick lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Another study estimated that lockdowns in six countries, including the US and China, prevented or delayed 530 million cases of COVID-19. “It’s just problematic to exclude the majority of available research, and there’s a risk that your review will become very unbalanced and unrepresentative,” Lison said. “Of course, there is still some uncertainty and many open questions, but there is already substantial evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions overall.”
Writers tied to libertarian think tanks
The authors are not epidemiologists or public health experts, and PoP has emphasized their connections to libertarian think tanks that oppose most government interventions in society. “The authors do not represent the fields of study that apply to epidemiology, public health, disease transmission, these kinds of fields that we should be looking to for information about our response to the pandemic,” Gandt said. Co-author Jonas Herby, an economist at the Center for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, is a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, which calls itself promoting “pure liberty and private governance,” with government “sharply limited.” Another co-author, Steve Hanke, is a fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute who has referred to the lockdowns and orders as “cracking the fascist whip.” Jonas Herby, co-author of the paper, says most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing rather than lockdown requirements. (CBC) In an interview, Herby acknowledged the conservative leanings of the writers and said he framed the question they wanted to ask the paper. But their research method was correct, he added. He said the meta-analysis focused on deaths because there weren’t many studies available on hospitalizations. Regarding criticism that the authors used the broad term “lockdown” for a range of different restrictions, Herby said that’s why the 0.2 percent reduction in mortality is based on an “average” lockdown. “I think it’s bad science to say your science is bad just because you have a different political view than I do.”
The revised version shows a greater reduction in deaths
The paper’s three authors published a revised version in May. It recalculates the reduction in deaths caused by lockdowns as 3.2 percent — still lower than other studies, but 16 times higher than the 0.2 percent estimate in the first edition. Mask mandates had the biggest effect, reducing mortality from COVID-19 by 18.7%, he says. The authors say what matters is not specific figures, but the fact that the number of lives saved by lockdowns “is far short and far” from what epidemiologists, politicians and the media have promised. Most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing, not lockdown requirements, Herby says. People changed their behavior voluntarily in response to a threat, he says. “The question is, can lockdowns foster this behavior change? I think they can, but the effect is very limited.” The new version includes a statement that it “doesn’t mean lockdowns don’t work. “It simply suggests that the more lenient lockdowns had essentially the same effect on mortality as the stricter lockdowns. Since no country did anything, we cannot rule out that some NPI would be required, eg to incentivize voluntary behavior changes.” “ Leeson said he found the defense of the authors of the meta-analysis “largely unconvincing” and said the revised version did not change his view that the paper should not be used by governments as policy advice. “Most of the problems of the first version remain,” he said.
title: “The Flawed Findings About The Lockdowns Fueled The Province S Decision To End The Orders Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-12” author: “Jeffery Sorenson”
The paper, by three researchers affiliated with libertarian think tanks, concluded that lockdowns did not significantly reduce the death rate during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020. But the study, a so-called “meta-analysis” that compiles dozens of individual studies, is fraught with problems, according to other researchers. “The study has some methodological issues that make the conclusion not reliable. So there is a high risk of possible bias,” says Adrian Lison, PhD student and infectious disease researcher at ETH Zurich. “And as the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, we believe it does not really add reliable new knowledge to the body of knowledge, so we recommend against using the fairly strong conclusions in this review in policy.” The paper was circulated among New Brunswick Department of Health officials in early February. It has not been published in an academic journal. Since the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, Adrian Lison, an infectious disease researcher, recommends that it not be used to revise the policy. (Submitted by Adrian Lison) Lockdowns “have little to no public health impact” but huge economic costs, he says. They are “baseless and should be rejected as a pandemic policy tool.” Health department spokesman Adam Bowie said officials are looking at data “from a lot of different studies” as well as epidemiologists in the province when making decisions. “A recommendation from Public Health to introduce or remove any health mandate would never be based on any study or report,” he said. The meta-analysis “would be just one source of information under consideration,” he said, though he did not identify other studies they used. Kathleen Gadd of the citizens’ group Protect our Province, which obtained the study through a Right to Information request, says it was the only so-called academic study the province submitted. “The fact that they didn’t give any more papers says a lot,” he said. “If other studies and papers and peer-reviewed evidence were being used to inform the removal of the mandatory mandate, it would be time to give that information to the public.”
Using the blanket term ‘lockdown’ is ‘dangerous’, researcher says
Among the flaws critics have identified is the paper’s use of the blanket term “lockdown” for a range of policies, from stay-at-home orders to cover-up orders. That makes it difficult to measure the impact of individual restrictions, says Lison, who authored a rebuttal published on the Social Science Research Network website. He says it’s “dangerous in a systematic review to use such a broad term, because if you jump to conclusions at the end, there’s a big risk that people will misinterpret your findings.” The paper also measures death rates without considering other effects, such as reduced transmission and the reduced impact of hospitalizations on the health care system. Lison says transmission is a better measure of the impact of the lockdown because it is more immediately affected by the restrictions, while hospitalization and death occur after a delay.
A health official called the newspaper’s conclusions “interesting”
The province lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. The 60-page paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” was the only research study included in the 200 pages sent to the PoP group when it requested documents related to the decision. In an email on February 4, 2022, Nina van der Pluijm, the director of welfare, legislation and standards at the department, sent the study to several colleagues, noting, “Interesting information about the effectiveness of the lock-down.” She noted her conclusion that the average lockdown reduced mortality by only 0.2%. Gadd, a former health sciences librarian, says “quite a number” of people with expertise in universities and health authorities could have provided staff with better studies. “There is no sign that information professionals, such as health science librarians, were involved in these very important decisions being made about the health of New Brunswickers,” he said. “There is a large body of high-quality peer-reviewed evidence that has been completely ignored by those in power about how to manage the pandemic.”
The paper was criticized as “unbalanced” because it excluded other studies
The meta-analysis, published in January, synthesizes the findings of 34 separate studies. The authors started with hundreds of studies, but reviewed most of them. “Unfortunately this review has only focused on a very small subset of analysis … and has excluded a large part of the total body evidence, the overall epidemiological research, so it’s also rather unbalanced,” Lison said. Dr. Seth Flaxman, professor of computer science at the University of Oxford, called the meta-analysis “fundamentally flawed” because it excluded studies rooted in epidemiology. Researchers at Imperial College London said in June 2020 that lockdowns in the first wave of the pandemic likely prevented 3.1 million deaths in 11 European countries. New Brunswick lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Another study estimated that lockdowns in six countries, including the US and China, prevented or delayed 530 million cases of COVID-19. “It’s just problematic to exclude the majority of available research, and there’s a risk that your review will become very unbalanced and unrepresentative,” Lison said. “Of course, there is still some uncertainty and many open questions, but there is already substantial evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions overall.”
Writers tied to libertarian think tanks
The authors are not epidemiologists or public health experts, and PoP has emphasized their connections to libertarian think tanks that oppose most government interventions in society. “The authors do not represent the fields of study that apply to epidemiology, public health, disease transmission, these kinds of fields that we should be looking to for information about our response to the pandemic,” Gandt said. Co-author Jonas Herby, an economist at the Center for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, is a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, which calls itself promoting “pure liberty and private governance,” with government “sharply limited.” Another co-author, Steve Hanke, is a fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute who has referred to the lockdowns and orders as “cracking the fascist whip.” Jonas Herby, co-author of the paper, says most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing rather than lockdown requirements. (CBC) In an interview, Herby acknowledged the conservative leanings of the writers and said he framed the question they wanted to ask the paper. But their research method was correct, he added. He said the meta-analysis focused on deaths because there weren’t many studies available on hospitalizations. Regarding criticism that the authors used the broad term “lockdown” for a range of different restrictions, Herby said that’s why the 0.2 percent reduction in mortality is based on an “average” lockdown. “I think it’s bad science to say your science is bad just because you have a different political view than I do.”
The revised version shows a greater reduction in deaths
The paper’s three authors published a revised version in May. It recalculates the reduction in deaths caused by lockdowns as 3.2 percent — still lower than other studies, but 16 times higher than the 0.2 percent estimate in the first edition. Mask mandates had the biggest effect, reducing mortality from COVID-19 by 18.7%, he says. The authors say what matters is not specific figures, but the fact that the number of lives saved by lockdowns “is far short and far” from what epidemiologists, politicians and the media have promised. Most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing, not lockdown requirements, Herby says. People changed their behavior voluntarily in response to a threat, he says. “The question is, can lockdowns foster this behavior change? I think they can, but the effect is very limited.” The new version includes a statement that it “doesn’t mean lockdowns don’t work. “It simply suggests that the more lenient lockdowns had essentially the same effect on mortality as the stricter lockdowns. Since no country did anything, we cannot rule out that some NPI would be required, eg to incentivize voluntary behavior changes.” “ Leeson said he found the defense of the authors of the meta-analysis “largely unconvincing” and said the revised version did not change his view that the paper should not be used by governments as policy advice. “Most of the problems of the first version remain,” he said.
title: “The Flawed Findings About The Lockdowns Fueled The Province S Decision To End The Orders Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-06” author: “Willie Wiley”
The paper, by three researchers affiliated with libertarian think tanks, concluded that lockdowns did not significantly reduce the death rate during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020. But the study, a so-called “meta-analysis” that compiles dozens of individual studies, is fraught with problems, according to other researchers. “The study has some methodological issues that make the conclusion not reliable. So there is a high risk of possible bias,” says Adrian Lison, PhD student and infectious disease researcher at ETH Zurich. “And as the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, we believe it does not really add reliable new knowledge to the body of knowledge, so we recommend against using the fairly strong conclusions in this review in policy.” The paper was circulated among New Brunswick Department of Health officials in early February. It has not been published in an academic journal. Since the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, Adrian Lison, an infectious disease researcher, recommends that it not be used to revise the policy. (Submitted by Adrian Lison) Lockdowns “have little to no public health impact” but huge economic costs, he says. They are “baseless and should be rejected as a pandemic policy tool.” Health department spokesman Adam Bowie said officials are looking at data “from a lot of different studies” as well as epidemiologists in the province when making decisions. “A recommendation from Public Health to introduce or remove any health mandate would never be based on any study or report,” he said. The meta-analysis “would be just one source of information under consideration,” he said, though he did not identify other studies they used. Kathleen Gadd of the citizens’ group Protect our Province, which obtained the study through a Right to Information request, says it was the only so-called academic study the province submitted. “The fact that they didn’t give any more papers says a lot,” he said. “If other studies and papers and peer-reviewed evidence were being used to inform the removal of the mandatory mandate, it would be time to give that information to the public.”
Using the blanket term ‘lockdown’ is ‘dangerous’, researcher says
Among the flaws critics have identified is the paper’s use of the blanket term “lockdown” for a range of policies, from stay-at-home orders to cover-up orders. That makes it difficult to measure the impact of individual restrictions, says Lison, who authored a rebuttal published on the Social Science Research Network website. He says it’s “dangerous in a systematic review to use such a broad term, because if you jump to conclusions at the end, there’s a big risk that people will misinterpret your findings.” The paper also measures death rates without considering other effects, such as reduced transmission and the reduced impact of hospitalizations on the health care system. Lison says transmission is a better measure of the impact of the lockdown because it is more immediately affected by the restrictions, while hospitalization and death occur after a delay.
A health official called the newspaper’s conclusions “interesting”
The province lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. The 60-page paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” was the only research study included in the 200 pages sent to the PoP group when it requested documents related to the decision. In an email on February 4, 2022, Nina van der Pluijm, the director of welfare, legislation and standards at the department, sent the study to several colleagues, noting, “Interesting information about the effectiveness of the lock-down.” She noted her conclusion that the average lockdown reduced mortality by only 0.2%. Gadd, a former health sciences librarian, says “quite a number” of people with expertise in universities and health authorities could have provided staff with better studies. “There is no sign that information professionals, such as health science librarians, were involved in these very important decisions being made about the health of New Brunswickers,” he said. “There is a large body of high-quality peer-reviewed evidence that has been completely ignored by those in power about how to manage the pandemic.”
The paper was criticized as “unbalanced” because it excluded other studies
The meta-analysis, published in January, synthesizes the findings of 34 separate studies. The authors started with hundreds of studies, but reviewed most of them. “Unfortunately this review has only focused on a very small subset of analysis … and has excluded a large part of the total body evidence, the overall epidemiological research, so it’s also rather unbalanced,” Lison said. Dr. Seth Flaxman, professor of computer science at the University of Oxford, called the meta-analysis “fundamentally flawed” because it excluded studies rooted in epidemiology. Researchers at Imperial College London said in June 2020 that lockdowns in the first wave of the pandemic likely prevented 3.1 million deaths in 11 European countries. New Brunswick lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Another study estimated that lockdowns in six countries, including the US and China, prevented or delayed 530 million cases of COVID-19. “It’s just problematic to exclude the majority of available research, and there’s a risk that your review will become very unbalanced and unrepresentative,” Lison said. “Of course, there is still some uncertainty and many open questions, but there is already substantial evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions overall.”
Writers tied to libertarian think tanks
The authors are not epidemiologists or public health experts, and PoP has emphasized their connections to libertarian think tanks that oppose most government interventions in society. “The authors do not represent the fields of study that apply to epidemiology, public health, disease transmission, these kinds of fields that we should be looking to for information about our response to the pandemic,” Gandt said. Co-author Jonas Herby, an economist at the Center for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, is a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, which calls itself promoting “pure liberty and private governance,” with government “sharply limited.” Another co-author, Steve Hanke, is a fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute who has referred to the lockdowns and orders as “cracking the fascist whip.” Jonas Herby, co-author of the paper, says most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing rather than lockdown requirements. (CBC) In an interview, Herby acknowledged the conservative leanings of the writers and said he framed the question they wanted to ask the paper. But their research method was correct, he added. He said the meta-analysis focused on deaths because there weren’t many studies available on hospitalizations. Regarding criticism that the authors used the broad term “lockdown” for a range of different restrictions, Herby said that’s why the 0.2 percent reduction in mortality is based on an “average” lockdown. “I think it’s bad science to say your science is bad just because you have a different political view than I do.”
The revised version shows a greater reduction in deaths
The paper’s three authors published a revised version in May. It recalculates the reduction in deaths caused by lockdowns as 3.2 percent — still lower than other studies, but 16 times higher than the 0.2 percent estimate in the first edition. Mask mandates had the biggest effect, reducing mortality from COVID-19 by 18.7%, he says. The authors say what matters is not specific figures, but the fact that the number of lives saved by lockdowns “is far short and far” from what epidemiologists, politicians and the media have promised. Most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing, not lockdown requirements, Herby says. People changed their behavior voluntarily in response to a threat, he says. “The question is, can lockdowns foster this behavior change? I think they can, but the effect is very limited.” The new version includes a statement that it “doesn’t mean lockdowns don’t work. “It simply suggests that the more lenient lockdowns had essentially the same effect on mortality as the stricter lockdowns. Since no country did anything, we cannot rule out that some NPI would be required, eg to incentivize voluntary behavior changes.” “ Leeson said he found the defense of the authors of the meta-analysis “largely unconvincing” and said the revised version did not change his view that the paper should not be used by governments as policy advice. “Most of the problems of the first version remain,” he said.
title: “The Flawed Findings About The Lockdowns Fueled The Province S Decision To End The Orders Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-06” author: “Angela Stringer”
The paper, by three researchers affiliated with libertarian think tanks, concluded that lockdowns did not significantly reduce the death rate during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020. But the study, a so-called “meta-analysis” that compiles dozens of individual studies, is fraught with problems, according to other researchers. “The study has some methodological issues that make the conclusion not reliable. So there is a high risk of possible bias,” says Adrian Lison, PhD student and infectious disease researcher at ETH Zurich. “And as the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, we believe it does not really add reliable new knowledge to the body of knowledge, so we recommend against using the fairly strong conclusions in this review in policy.” The paper was circulated among New Brunswick Department of Health officials in early February. It has not been published in an academic journal. Since the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, Adrian Lison, an infectious disease researcher, recommends that it not be used to revise the policy. (Submitted by Adrian Lison) Lockdowns “have little to no public health impact” but huge economic costs, he says. They are “baseless and should be rejected as a pandemic policy tool.” Health department spokesman Adam Bowie said officials are looking at data “from a lot of different studies” as well as epidemiologists in the province when making decisions. “A recommendation from Public Health to introduce or remove any health mandate would never be based on any study or report,” he said. The meta-analysis “would be just one source of information under consideration,” he said, though he did not identify other studies they used. Kathleen Gadd of the citizens’ group Protect our Province, which obtained the study through a Right to Information request, says it was the only so-called academic study the province submitted. “The fact that they didn’t give any more papers says a lot,” he said. “If other studies and papers and peer-reviewed evidence were being used to inform the removal of the mandatory mandate, it would be time to give that information to the public.”
Using the blanket term ‘lockdown’ is ‘dangerous’, researcher says
Among the flaws critics have identified is the paper’s use of the blanket term “lockdown” for a range of policies, from stay-at-home orders to cover-up orders. That makes it difficult to measure the impact of individual restrictions, says Lison, who authored a rebuttal published on the Social Science Research Network website. He says it’s “dangerous in a systematic review to use such a broad term, because if you jump to conclusions at the end, there’s a big risk that people will misinterpret your findings.” The paper also measures death rates without considering other effects, such as reduced transmission and the reduced impact of hospitalizations on the health care system. Lison says transmission is a better measure of the impact of the lockdown because it is more immediately affected by the restrictions, while hospitalization and death occur after a delay.
A health official called the newspaper’s conclusions “interesting”
The province lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. The 60-page paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” was the only research study included in the 200 pages sent to the PoP group when it requested documents related to the decision. In an email on February 4, 2022, Nina van der Pluijm, the director of welfare, legislation and standards at the department, sent the study to several colleagues, noting, “Interesting information about the effectiveness of the lock-down.” She noted her conclusion that the average lockdown reduced mortality by only 0.2%. Gadd, a former health sciences librarian, says “quite a number” of people with expertise in universities and health authorities could have provided staff with better studies. “There is no sign that information professionals, such as health science librarians, were involved in these very important decisions being made about the health of New Brunswickers,” he said. “There is a large body of high-quality peer-reviewed evidence that has been completely ignored by those in power about how to manage the pandemic.”
The paper was criticized as “unbalanced” because it excluded other studies
The meta-analysis, published in January, synthesizes the findings of 34 separate studies. The authors started with hundreds of studies, but reviewed most of them. “Unfortunately this review has only focused on a very small subset of analysis … and has excluded a large part of the total body evidence, the overall epidemiological research, so it’s also rather unbalanced,” Lison said. Dr. Seth Flaxman, professor of computer science at the University of Oxford, called the meta-analysis “fundamentally flawed” because it excluded studies rooted in epidemiology. Researchers at Imperial College London said in June 2020 that lockdowns in the first wave of the pandemic likely prevented 3.1 million deaths in 11 European countries. New Brunswick lifted its mandatory COVID-19 order on March 14, ending mask mandates, proof-of-vaccination requirements and limits on gatherings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Another study estimated that lockdowns in six countries, including the US and China, prevented or delayed 530 million cases of COVID-19. “It’s just problematic to exclude the majority of available research, and there’s a risk that your review will become very unbalanced and unrepresentative,” Lison said. “Of course, there is still some uncertainty and many open questions, but there is already substantial evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions overall.”
Writers tied to libertarian think tanks
The authors are not epidemiologists or public health experts, and PoP has emphasized their connections to libertarian think tanks that oppose most government interventions in society. “The authors do not represent the fields of study that apply to epidemiology, public health, disease transmission, these kinds of fields that we should be looking to for information about our response to the pandemic,” Gandt said. Co-author Jonas Herby, an economist at the Center for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, is a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, which calls itself promoting “pure liberty and private governance,” with government “sharply limited.” Another co-author, Steve Hanke, is a fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute who has referred to the lockdowns and orders as “cracking the fascist whip.” Jonas Herby, co-author of the paper, says most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing rather than lockdown requirements. (CBC) In an interview, Herby acknowledged the conservative leanings of the writers and said he framed the question they wanted to ask the paper. But their research method was correct, he added. He said the meta-analysis focused on deaths because there weren’t many studies available on hospitalizations. Regarding criticism that the authors used the broad term “lockdown” for a range of different restrictions, Herby said that’s why the 0.2 percent reduction in mortality is based on an “average” lockdown. “I think it’s bad science to say your science is bad just because you have a different political view than I do.”
The revised version shows a greater reduction in deaths
The paper’s three authors published a revised version in May. It recalculates the reduction in deaths caused by lockdowns as 3.2 percent — still lower than other studies, but 16 times higher than the 0.2 percent estimate in the first edition. Mask mandates had the biggest effect, reducing mortality from COVID-19 by 18.7%, he says. The authors say what matters is not specific figures, but the fact that the number of lives saved by lockdowns “is far short and far” from what epidemiologists, politicians and the media have promised. Most of the “flattening of the curve” of COVID deaths early in the pandemic was due to voluntary distancing, not lockdown requirements, Herby says. People changed their behavior voluntarily in response to a threat, he says. “The question is, can lockdowns foster this behavior change? I think they can, but the effect is very limited.” The new version includes a statement that it “doesn’t mean lockdowns don’t work. “It simply suggests that the more lenient lockdowns had essentially the same effect on mortality as the stricter lockdowns. Since no country did anything, we cannot rule out that some NPI would be required, eg to incentivize voluntary behavior changes.” “ Leeson said he found the defense of the authors of the meta-analysis “largely unconvincing” and said the revised version did not change his view that the paper should not be used by governments as policy advice. “Most of the problems of the first version remain,” he said.
