Skip to main content

Flattening the curve or flattening the global poor? How Covid lockdowns obliterate human rights and crush the most vulnerable

Marketed as life-saving public health measures, lockdowns triggered death and economic devastation on a global scale while doing little to slow the spread of Covid-19. Now, they’re back with a vengeance.
 
by Stavroula Pabst and Max Blumenthal
 
Part 6 - Unpacking the misconception lockdowns work against COVID-19
 
Many credited lockdowns in China, Greece, Vietnam, and Australia with early COVID successes, contributing to a widespread perception that lockdowns are vital to saving lives, and, therefore, a compassionate choice. Such reasoning has led governments internationally to proceed with lengthy closures of daily life.

According to Dr. Bhattacharya, these policies might be appropriate to halt the spread of a given virus depending on its profile and status. “There are diseases that are incredibly deadly, but not particularly infectious, where quarantining and sharp lockdowns locally can be quite effective,” Bhattacharya explained. “For instance, we limited the Ebola [virus] outbreaks in this way.” 

Could COVID-19 have been addressed through sharp interventions as Ebola was? The answer depends in part on the properties of the virus, such as how deadly it is and how and how easily it spreads. Oftentimes, more lethal diseases spread less easily than their weaker counterparts, and that’s because the host will either die or know what they have and isolate themselves accordingly, thus halting transmission. Despite significantly higher fatality rates (25-90%, depending on the outbreak) in relation to COVID-19, Ebola is less infectious than other diseases and does not spread through the air: in fact, it typically dies within thirty seconds outside bodily fluids. 

In contrast, COVID-19 is a respiratory virus that likely spreads through aerosol transmission. Echoing the now-discredited modelling from the Imperial College of London, media coverage from early 2020 made the coronavirus appear more deadly than it turned out to be, with some reports suggesting the fatality rate could rise to as high as seven percent. In reality, the coronavirus is a less lethal disease that spreads easily, making it harder to contain with human interventions.

Because COVID-19 is a seasonal virus that tends to flourish in winter, much like the flu, early COVID “victors” like New Zealand and Australia were fortunate to get hit with it during their respective summers. They also are geographically isolated. The rest of the world was not so lucky.  

Drawing on studies of virus prevalence in California urban areas in March 2020, for example, Bhattacharya concluded it was “too late” for the coronavirus measures that state officials issued to help eliminate the virus, with about 3-4% of survey respondents reporting they already had COVID-19 antibodies.

Such numbers suggest that the virus was present much earlier in many parts of the world than originally believed, rendering subsequent preventive pandemic measures futile in eliminating or slowing the virus despite their stringency. In other words, based on the nature of its spread and its widespread establishment in many communities, the virus had already taken root in an irreversible way.

You don’t get up to 2 to 4 percent disease spread [of COVID-19] unless you’ve had it spreading for a while,” Bhattacharya said in reference to the California seroprevalence study. “That means 96 percent of the population [at the time was] still susceptible to the virus, and far from endemic. But way too far gone to actually have hope that any lockdowns will stop the disease.”

Despite the tendency to resort to them when cases rise, the evidence of lockdowns’ effectiveness in inhibiting the spread of coronavirus is threadbare.
 
Peru, which boasts the world’s highest COVID-19 death rate despite imposing hard lockdowns, was a case in point. Meanwhile, Greece locked down in November 2020 at around 2,500-3,000 cases daily, only to open again for tourism six months later with similar case numbers. Then there was Belarus, a country of over 9 million which did not lock down or introduce a mask mandate, and boasted one of Europe’s lowest COVID death rates all the way up to the Delta surge in Eastern Europe.

The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, reportedly offered Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko $940 million in COVID assistance on the condition that he imposed harsh pandemic restrictions. Lukashenko said he refused, proclaiming, “the IMF continues to demand from us quarantine measures, isolation, and a curfew. This is nonsense. We will not dance to anyone’s tune.” 

By June 2021, only a minority of Belarusian citizens told pollsters they favored more COVID-19 restrictions.

Despite their widespread utilization as a non-pharmaceutical intervention against COVID-19, the shaky evidence for lockdowns does not end with anecdotes and country-specific strategies: dozens of academic and scientific studies call into question their efficacy or otherwise argue that the social, economic, and health related harms they pose significantly outweigh the risks. Their conclusions include the following (thread compiled by twitter user @the_brumby):

In Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison, Aarhus University Economics Professor Christian Bjørnskov writes that after “[u]sing two indices from the Blavatnik Centre’s Covid 19 policy measures and comparing weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries in the first halves of 2017-2020, and addressing policy endogeneity in two different ways, I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.”
 
In Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19, Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, and John P. A. Ioannidis, a team of Stanford University academics and research data scientists, conclude that “there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.” 

Medical researchers and doctors Rabail Chaudhry, MD, Justyna Bartoszko, MD and Sheila Riazi, MD (University of Toronto Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine), George Dranitsaris, MD (University of Ioannina Department of Hematology) and Talha Mubashir, MD (previously University of Toronto Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, now at the University of Texas McGovern Medical School Department of Anesthesiology) write in A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes that “government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

In Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study, academics and researchers at Brazil-based institutions, including the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst address early data favoring lockdowns and stay-at-home policies through an analysis of mathematical models and data from 87 regions worldwide. In “yielding 3,741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis…[they] were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons.”

In Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation, French medical researchers Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg and University of Paris Professor of Physiology Jean-François Toussaint write that the “[s]tringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.” Instead, they conclude that nations with stagnating life expectancies and high rates of income and non-communicable disease —in other words, existing characteristics of a nation’s demographics— faced higher mortality rates regardless of government interventions.

And in Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response, University of Waikato Economics Professor John Gibson concludes that “Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths…[t]he apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
 
These dozens of studies are consistent with pre-COVID-19 pandemic literature emphasizing the ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions like lockdowns.

Almost all [pre-pandemic planning guides before the coronavirus] emphasized respect for civil rights, disrupting societies as little as possible, protecting the vulnerable, and not spreading panic,” said Dr. Bhattacharya. “The lockdowns and the media narrative and the public health narrative of March 2020 violated all those principles.

In a 2006 paper, Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, academics at the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (now known as the John Hopkins Center for Health Security) in Baltimore, Maryland, wrote: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.

Documents as recent as the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) guide, Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, furthermore, state that the “evidence base on the effectiveness of [Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions] in community settings is limited, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for most interventions.

While already-existing pandemic literature naturally could not make COVID-19 specific recommendations, a well-established understanding of the general ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for respiratory viruses largely went unheeded as media and government-driven fear gripped the population in early 2020. Everyday people paid and continue to pay the price.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump helps BlackRock buy Panama Canal ports, to weaken China & strengthen Wall Street

Geopolitical Economy Report   BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, is buying the ports on both sides of the Panama Canal, after Donald Trump threatened the Latin American country and forced it to pressure a Hong Kong company to sell its stake. Ben Norton discusses how the US government is trying to weaken China -- and strengthen Wall Street oligarchs. 

Trump’s Trap: Macron & Ursula Push Europe Into WAR With Russia

Danny Haiphong   Brian Berletic reacts to Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen's shocking declaration of war on Russia, explaining the huge consequences it will have for Europe. Why are they taking responsibility for Ukraine? The answer may surprise you and Brian reveals the truth behind the spin in this must-watch video. 

Το καθεστώς του χάους

globinfo freexchange   Αμέσως μετά τις εθνικές εκλογές του 2019 είχαμε γράψει ότι ¨ ... απ'ότι φαίνεται τελικά, ο "σοφός λαός" δεν είναι και τόσο σοφός. Είτε με την ψήφο του, είτε με την αποχή του, έδωσε το ελεύθερο στη χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης να σαρώσει σαν 'οδοστρωτήρας' τα πάντα στο πέρασμά της. Μετά από τέσσερα χρόνια νεοφιλελεύθερης λαίλαπας, το τοπίο καταστροφής θα έχει κάνει τη χώρα κυριολεκτικά αγνώριστη. ¨   Στο μόνο που πέσαμε έξω ήταν η χρονική διάρκεια της Μητσοτακικής λαίλαπας, που κράτησε παραπάνω και συνεχίζει ακάθεκτη να ισοπεδώνει τη χώρα, μάλλον λόγω της απρόβλεπτης πανδημίας, που ήρθε ως μάννα εξ'ουρανού για το καθεστώς Μητσοτάκη.  Αυτό όμως που δεν μπορούσαμε με τίποτα να φανταστούμε, είναι ότι μετά από την παταγώδη αποτυχία της διακυβέρνησης Μητσοτάκη σε όλους τους τομείς, μετά από αυτή την πρωτοφανή στα χρονικά του τόπου και αδιανόητη απόπειρα συγκάλυψης του εγκλήματος των Τεμπών και την γενικότερη, πρωτοφανή υποβάθμιση τ...

Netanyahu commits 'a bloodbath in Gaza' to save himself

Middle East Eye   At least 400 people have been killed after a surprise Israeli attack on Gaza in the early hours of Tuesday. Israel’s government vows to continue escalating these military attacks, saying it’s in response to Hamas’ refusal to extend the ceasefire, which has been in place since January. But is this the real reason for this morning’s attack? Or is there a much more cynical explanation - one tied to the political fate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?   The Big Picture Podcast speaks to Daniel Levy, the president of the US/Middle East Project and a former Israeli peace negotiator. 

Israel Has Always ‘Depended on Genocide’ to Colonize Palestine

BreakThrough News   Rania Khalek and Eugene Puryear discuss Israel’s resumption of its genocidal war on Palestinians in Gaza, launched just a day before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to face his corruption trial. Israel, backed by a green light from Trump, intensified the bombing of Gaza, began a ground invasion, and killed over 500 Palestinians within 48 hours while enforcing a total blockade of Gaza. Eugene states that Israel never wanted to go through with the ceasefire because “the Israeli project can’t succeed unless it totally ethnically cleanses the territories it claims– and kills anyone in the way.” Recognizing that they may “not get the chance again,” they are putting their foot on the accelerator.” 

Betar: the Far-Right Hate Group Helping Trump Deport Israel’s Critics

by Alan Macleod  Part 1 A far-right, pro-Israel group with a history of support for terror and genocide is working closely with the Trump administration, preparing dossiers on thousands of pro-Palestine figures it wants deported from the United States. Betar U.S. is known to have had several meetings with senior government officials and has claimed credit for the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the nationwide anti-genocide student demonstrations that began at Columbia University last year. Ross Glick, the group’s executive director until last month, noted that he met with a diverse set of influential lawmakers, including Democratic senator John Fetterman and aides to the Republican senators Ted Cruz and James Lankford, and that all supported Betar U.S.’ campaign to rid the country of thousands of “terror supporters.” Shortly after Glick’s trip to Washington, D.C., Trump signed an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” that promises ...

This speech accidentally exposed the truth about the US

Geopolitical Economy Report   US Vice President JD Vance gave a speech about globalization that inadvertently revealed the truth about the US empire, the goal behind the new cold war on China, the economics of imperialism, and how the Trump administration is serving billionaire Big Tech oligarchs in Silicon Valley at the expense of the working class. Ben Norton explains. 

Winner of Romanian Presidential Election ARRESTED!

The Jimmy Dore Show  

Trump’s ISRAEL FIRST Flip-Flop On Attacking Yemen!

The Jimmy Dore Show   President Trump has taken decisive military action in Yemen, ordering airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi rebels on March 15, 2025. This action represents a significant flip-flop from when, as a presidential candidate, Trump railed against the Biden administration for bombing the Houthis instead of talking to them. Jimmy Dore discusses the strikes, the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since Trump took office and which came after a period of relative quiet in the region. 

Trump Bombs Yemen, Pushes US Closer to War with Iran

Glenn Greenwald