Stay-at-Home Lockdowns Made No Difference to Covid Deaths in U.S. States

A new study from the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago has analysed the impact of stay-at-home orders on infections and deaths in U.S. states and found they made no difference.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the scientific journal PNAS, found stay-at-home orders (also known as shelter-in-place orders or SIPs) were not associated with lower infections or deaths; furthermore, they were actually associated with a slight increase in infections and deaths, although this was not statistically significant. The results are summarised in the charts below, where dots above the dashed line indicate an increase and dots below a decrease. Red dots are statistically significant results.

The authors suggest that stay-at-home orders have no impact on infections or deaths because they have little to no impact on mobility. Isolating the impact of stay-at-home orders from existing mobility trends, they estimate that the orders themselves contributed a reduction in mobility of just 0.7% compared to pre-pandemic levels. This is largely, they say, because people were already reducing their mobility as much as they were able or willing to.

The mobility data (from mobile phone movement) for U.S. states, with the date of the stay-at-home order shown as a dashed line ands its removal as a dotted line, are shown below.

The authors observe that if stay-at-home orders aren’t affecting mobility, it’s difficult to see how they will affect anything else: “If SIP [shelter-in-place] orders did not have large effects on behaviour, it is hard to imagine how they could have had large effects on COVID-19 cases and deaths.” They add: “The health benefits of SIP orders were likely limited because many people were already social distancing before the introduction of SIP orders.”

They suggest that voluntary mobility reduction and social distancing made a difference to outcomes, though do not commit to saying how much. Noting that nationwide there was around a 50% decrease in mobility between February and April 2020, they state: “The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease.” However, their results, they say, “have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.”

The model-based studies which claim stay-at-home lockdown orders saved thousands of lives are therefore in error, they argue.:

The previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing – SIP practice as distinct from policy – was ineffective.

The study was written and submitted prior to the appearance in Nature this March of the study by R.F. Savaris and colleagues which in effect looked at “SIP practice as distinct from policy”. It found that actually staying at home made little to no difference either:

We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.

I have noted before that it is important to be sceptical not just about lockdowns but about social distancing as well. This is because if the objection to lockdowns is simply that they’re unnecessary because people voluntarily lock themselves down anyway, and that it is this voluntary social isolation that stops the virus from spreading, then we are forced to agree with those who claim that the death toll so far is just a small part of what’s to come when social distancing ends and we all go back to mixing freely.

In other words, it is central to the sceptical argument that not just lockdowns but social distancing is largely ineffective at slowing or preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Drop that and we have to admit that social distancing has so far prevented the population from feeling the full force of the pandemic and that returning to normal will bring a deadly new wave of infections (or concede that it is only vaccines that are keeping a ‘third wave’ at bay and that in the absence of the vaccines being invented we should all continue to socially isolate).

Of course, social distancing would be effective at preventing transmission if everyone actually isolated themselves completely. But the crucial point is that more often than not that doesn’t happen, particularly in contexts where the most vulnerable are located, in hospitals and care homes. With the main mode of transmission being via aerosols building up in the air of poorly ventilated spaces, staying two metres apart does nothing to protect from such exposure (and neither do masks).

The gap between what the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature says about lockdowns and what governments, their scientific advisers and the wider population believe about lockdowns is now very large. To have such a gap between data and scientific evidence on the one hand and public policy and social beliefs on the other is highly unstable and dangerous for a society. It results in intensifying social divisions as increasing numbers of people feel they cannot any longer go along with what the Government is saying, while on the other side the Government and its supporters increasingly resort to force and coercion because evidence and persuasion are not available to them. Yet admitting they are wrong is psychologically too difficult and personally too costly.

Professor Jay Bhattacharya recently came to the defence of his colleague Professor Sunetra Gupta, who had been attacked by a BBC interviewer for questioning the efficacy of lockdowns. He said: “There is a growing scientific consensus that the lockdowns have failed to control the spread of Covid in nearly every country that has imposed them.”

This is absolutely right. But the myth of lockdowns as an effective means of disease control persists anyway, and it is those who oppose them by quoting scientific evidence who are censored as dangerous and those who promote them by ignoring scientific evidence that are praised and listened to. It’s a topsy-turvy world, and a recipe for trouble.

“…the orders themselves contributed a reduction in mobility of just 0.7% compared to pre-pandemic levels. This is largely, they say, because people were already reducing their mobility as much as they were able or willing to.”

Auto traffic on California Bay Area roads must have collapsed 95% in March 2020 after the SIP orders were given. The freeways were almost empty. I could walk the mile to our little downtown, walk down Main Street, and walk home again and see at most one or two cars on the road. I could hike miles in our parks and not see another soul. Our beaches were completely empty.

don’t buy this 0.7% reduction in mobility claim. The road traffic in the Bay Area suddenly exploded back to normal levels three or four months ago. Now it’s regular gridlock and stop-and-go everywhere again.

I agree with the premise of the article. At most, the lockdowns extended the pain into the future.

As is commonly said, “viruses gonna virus.”

I could have told you lockdowns and social distancing didn't have any effect on preventing the spread of the virus. Add wearing masks to that too.

I have not worn a mask, social distanced or locked down since this so-called pandemic started and I haven't gotten the covid. And I'm in my mid-70s.

These mandates have nothing to do with the health and well-being of the population.

The mandates were to control the public and exert the Left's power over people.

Now they're using the fear of a second or third wave to extend their reach. And using the vaccines as a way to stretch out their control over the public.

All this to prevent getting the covid which has a 99.8% survivability rate.

Declare a pandemic, create a crisis, instill fear into people, close down the economy and the country, make up the masks, social distancing and lockdowns as a way control the public and you have a genuine "don't let a crisis go to waste" opportunity that could even be used to justify changing the election to mail-in ballots and cheat like hale to win with a couple of candidates that don't know what they are doing. IOW, create the Twilight Zone.

Someone prove me otherwise.

“Our analysis produces no evidence that SIP orders led to substantial reductions in mobility, COVID-19 cases, or COVID-19−related deaths”.

(SIP = shelter-in-place)

Several other major studies have shown the same.

• An analysis of COVID-19 data from 41 countries has identified 3 measures that each substantially cut viral transmission: school and university closures, restricting gatherings to no more than 10 people and shutting businesses. But adding stay-at-home orders to those actions brought only marginal benefit (Science. 2020:eabd9338 DOI: 10.1126/science.abd9338). Closing most nonessential face-to-face businesses was only somewhat more effective than targeted closures, which only affected businesses with high infection risk, such as bars, restaurants, and nightclubs. Limiting indoor gatherings to 10 people or less was more effective than limits of up to 100 or 1000 people and had a more robust effect estimate.

• A study looked at lockdown policies across 50 countries in the first half of 2020 and mortality rates. It concludes that “the lockdowns in most Western countries have thrown the world into the most severe recession since World War II and the most rapidly developing recession ever seen in mature market economies. They have also caused an erosion of fundamental rights and the separation of powers in large part of the world as both democratic and autocratic regimes have misused their emergency powers and ignored constitutional limits to policy making (CESifo Economic Studies. 2021;Published: 29 March, https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifab003). Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended. Further tests also show that early interventions offered no additional benefits or effectiveness and even indicate that the lockdowns of the spring of 2020 were associated with significantly more deaths in the particular age group between 60 and 79 years.”

• Less disruptive and costly non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can be as effective as more intrusive, drastic, ones (for example, a national lockdown) according to a review of 6,068 hierarchically coded NPIs implemented in 79 territories (Nature Human Behav. 2020;16 November). “Surprisingly, communicating on the importance of social distancing has been only marginally less effective than imposing distancing measures by law,” the authors write. The study does endorsed some of the component restrictions the U.S. has imposed — banning public gatherings and border restrictions — over the more sweeping lockdowns.

• Frequent testing found that 2% of US Marines (n=1,848) that volunteered in April 2020 became positive for SARS-CoV-2 during a 2-week during a strictly enforced military quarantine study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines, aka CHARM Study. NEJM. 2020;published November 11). A lockdown, however extreme, may not be capable of suppressing the virus. All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel.

• Asymptomatic and secondary infected individuals do not appear to infect others according to a study that performed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China (Nature. 2020;11:5917). “1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced.” Not a single additional person caught the virus. “The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases in the post-lockdown Wuhan was very low (0.303/10,000), and there was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious. These findings enabled decision makers to adjust prevention and control strategies in the post-lockdown period. Further studies are required to fully evaluate the impacts and cost-effectiveness of the citywide screening of SARS-CoV-2 infections on population’s health, health behaviours, economy, and society.” Note by commentator: It appears that the only time people can infect others is mostly when they are symptomatic. Best just to quarantine the symptomatic patient, as human societies have been doing for centuries and centuries.

Thank you for referencing that article Red Badger. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Stay-at-Home Lockdowns Made No Difference to Covid Deaths in U.S. States – Study"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Lockdowns need to be ordered early enough, like PDJT did, before a virus has had a chance to spread, or they are worthless imo.

More specifically, the purpose of ordering a lockdown early enough is to “flatten the curve” so that medical facilities won't be overwhelmed with victims.

On the other hand, politically correct, “Orange Man Bad” lockdowns ordered too late by desperate Democrats are worthless because virus has had chance to spread. So you consequently lockdown with somebody who probably already has virus and get infected.

And when lockdowns are in effect in winter, unless you’re taking vitamin D3 dietary supplements, you’re probably not going to get enough sunlight on your skin to produce D3 which helps to stop the virus in my nonmedical opinion.

Next, on a broader issue, patriots need to primary (2022) federal and state lawmakers who refuse to agree that Congress and the Oval Office don’t have the express constitutional authority to dictate domestic policy and promise to let each state decide its own domestic policy as the founders had intended.

Also, when the federal government accuses someone of violating a law, judges and law enforcement officials should be required to do the following.

Judges and law-enforcement officials need to inform the accused of the constitutional clause(s) that arguably justifies the allegedly broken law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where unconstitutional federal peacetime gun control laws are concerned imo.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.