Lockdowns Prevented Few COVID-19 Deaths Compared to Typical Flu Season Study Reveals

A giant television over the A57 motorway urges people to stay home in Manchester, England, on March 26, 2020. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Researchers have concluded that lockdowns should be “rejected out of hand” to control future pandemics as they failed to significantly reduce deaths.

Experts from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University claim that measures taken to curb COVID-19 in the spring of 2020 failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing severe economic and social costs.

The report published in the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs on Monday, June 5th found that lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season.

This means that lockdowns prevented around 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, approximately 6,000 deaths across Europe, and roughly 4,000 deaths in the United States.

Compared those numbers to the typical flu season, where England and Wales see 18,500 to 24,800 flu deaths. Europe experiences 72,000 flu deaths, and the United States records 38,000 flu deaths.

‘Stark Contrast’

The study noted the “stark contrast” with Professor Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London’s earlier modeling exercises in March 2020, which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the UK and over two million lives in the United States.

According to the research, voluntary behavioral changes, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic and “effectively reduced COVID-19 mortality in Sweden,” a country that did not impose “draconian legal restrictions.”

“This is consistent with evidence early in the pandemic that voluntary action began reducing transmission before lockdowns,” the report added.

It also found that harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits.

The authors of the study labelled COVID-19 lockdowns as “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions.”

“This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University.

“It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times,” he added.

Professor Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University said:

“When it comes to COVID-19, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned.

“The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the lives saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”

The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be “rejected out of hand” to control future pandemics.

A government spokesperson told The Epoch Times by email, “We are committed to learning from the Covid inquiry’s findings, which will play a key role in informing the government’s planning and preparations for the future.”

‘Global Authority’

MPs have debated whether the government should hold a referendum on the UK’s involvement in the WHO pandemic treaty, via which some groups claim will have the power to impose lockdown measures on the UK.

In 2021, global leaders made “an urgent call” for an international pandemic treaty that was co-signed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The WHO said that such a measure would signal “high-level political action needed to protect the world from future health crises.”

Last month, six Tory MPs wrote to the Foreign Office, working with the campaign group USForThem demanding it blocks any new WHO powers.

Their concerns include proposed amendments that will make advice “binding” and the introduction of a new requirement for countries to recognize the WHO as the “global authority” on public health measures.

In March, the government said that the UK’s position on the exact substance of the treaty “remains to be seen as negotiations continue.”

The UK COVID-19 inquiry, which will examine the government’s response to the virus and how decisions were made, is currently ongoing.

On Friday, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he is willing to hand over “all unredacted WhatsApp” messages which are likely to include key conversations about the three coronavirus lockdowns ordered in 2020.

The Epoch Times contacted Imperial College London for comment.

Chris Summers contributed to this report.