Posted on 10/06/2021 10:58:10 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
An examination of over 100 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on false assumptions that over-estimated the benefits and under-estimated the costs of lockdown.
The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths. Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.
[SNIP]
The review covers over 100 different academic studies, along with related Covid-19 data sites. I have sought out studies that (i) dealt with matters of ‘lockdown’ either directly or indirectly, and (ii) were related directly or indirectly to issues relevant to the costs or benefits of lockdown
[SNIP]
The report begins with an examination of four critical assumptions often made within the context of estimating benefits and costs. Understanding these assumptions explains why early studies claimed that the benefits of lockdown were so high, and also explains why the predictions of those studies turned out to be false.
Then I examine the major cost/benefit studies in roughly chronological order, and focus on the critical factor in these studies: distinguishing between mandated and voluntary changes in behavior. Preliminary work on the costs of lockdown is reviewed, and finally a simple cost/benefit methodology is used to generate several cost/benefit ratios of lockdown for my home country of Canada. In no scenario does lockdown pass a cost/benefit test; indeed, the most reasonable estimates suggest that lockdown is a great policy disaster. The limited effectiveness of lockdowns explains why, after more than one year, the unconditional cumulative Covid-19 deaths per million is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries.
Using a method proposed by Professor Bryan Caplan along with estimates of lockdown benefits based on the econometric evidence, I calculate a number of cost/benefit ratios of lockdowns in terms of life-years saved.
Using a mid-point estimate for costs and benefits, the reasonable estimate for Canada is a cost/benefit ratio of 141. It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.
ping
.
I can’t help but think that had Milton Friedman been in charge during the pandemic, rather than Anthony Fauci, things might have evolved differently.
More kids have committed suicide than have died of covid.
Fauci has a long history of offering increasingly terrifying scenarios which could garner increased support for his “treatment plans.”
In 1983, the god-like Fauci suggested that children might be able to acquire AIDS through routine contact with their family members.
Yet, even today, ordinary Americans are being blamed for excessively fearing AIDS in the 80’s.
“Home Life Linked to AIDS in Children,” May 6, 1983, Boston Globe, p. 6
Fauci said,
“If non-sexual, NON-BLOOD-BORNE transmission is possible, the scope of the syndrome may be enormous.”
“Therefore, in the two cases of an increase of 20% or 50% in deaths with no lockdown, Canada would have experienced an additional 4543 or 11,358 deaths. Meaning there would have been additional 44,430 or 111,081 years of lost life due to Covid-19 deaths. The benefit of lockdown, therefore, was the avoidance of these extra years of lost life. As noted, the cost of lockdown was 6,283,333 years of lost life, and therefore, the cost/benefit ratio of lockdown is 141 (6,283,333/44,430) or 56 (6,283,333/111,081).”
But we don’t of the downstream effects. For instance, the stress caused by lockdowns and deterioration of health from this stress may not become evident for a few years.
There are people who tell us that it is NOT Ivermectin that helped stop the Delta Variant in states like Uttar Pradesh in India, but the lockdowns.
So, based on the experience of these Indian States, the lockdowns are a necessary evil to stop the spread.
Just a note from a former data-oriented researcher—
Even this article, which makes clear a number of issues that others manage to confuse, conflate or obfuscate, misses at least one key point.
A government mandate does not actually correspond to a “change in behavior”. Hence, the distinction between voluntary and mandate changes in behavior is a bit short-sighted.
All behavior changes are voluntary. An urban Californian under a mandate order still does what he/she thinks is best. Similarly a Floridian, with more statutory freedom, might reasonably decide on personal protective measures that are much more severely restrictive than the Californian. Lockdowns appear to be “limits”, but in fact they are only another form of public information about disease response behavior.
Any reasonable analysis of the sort offered by the linked article should assess the impact of lockdown on personal protection choices versus other public information alternatives on personal protective choice.
The biased media, though frequently wrong in costly ways, actually is closer to a correct analysis than the researchers. Consensus about personal protection is what lockdowns create, compliance varies. Shaming and blame support consensus just as effectively as laws. Governors can take a break and let the talking heads try to take away important freedoms.
.
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.