UK Government Study Shows Lockdowns and Other NPIs Lack Evidence Base

When the pandemic began, I remember how politicians were clamoring that we needed to lock down large swathes of the economy to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Whether it was "Stay home, stay safe" or "you wouldn't want to infect Grandma," there were various tactics used to keep businesses locked down and people isolated from one another. What is interesting is that these Lockdown Lovers are nowhere near as loud now as they were in 2020. I cannot imagine why that would be the case. Maybe it is because the lockdowns were the disaster that I and others predicted back in 2020. 

In 2021, studies started coming in to show how ineffective they were, my favorite being a RAND Corporation study showing that lockdowns actually caused increased excess deaths. 2021 was the beginning of evidence arising showing how little good lockdowns brought about in the world. A report from the British government continues building that evidence base. 

Last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) released a report on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs included in this study were lockdowns, test and isolation, face masks, and travel restrictions. What did UKHSA find after reviewing 151 studies that were conducted in the United Kingdom? 

"The body of evidence available of effectiveness of NPIs in the U.K. provides weak evidence in terms of study design, as it is mainly based on modeling studies, ecological studies, mixed-methods studies, and qualitative studies." 

Much like with the Royal Society's recent report on lockdowns, the concept of effectiveness in the UKHSA report suffers from a similar definitional flaw. It decides to look at effectiveness as one-sided, i.e., what primarily or solely matters is preventing COVID transmission. This approach is the opposite of what a cost-benefit analysis or standard risk assessment should look like. In its 2022 meta-analysis, Johns Hopkins researchers acknowledged that in spite of there being some lives saved, there were considerable costs. Some of those costs included unemployment, reduced schooling, and undermining liberal democracy. This past year, I came across two systematic reviews in which the cost ($9.3T) of lockdowns in the United States by far exceeded the benefits ($189.1B). 

It is nice to see that governments are starting to see how ineffective the lockdowns were. Rather than own up to supporting a terrible policy decision, people would rather distance themselves from lockdowns to the point they deny their initial support. Yes, acknowledging that lockdowns were disastrous is a good start. If we want to make sure we can adequately respond to the next pandemic, politicians and government officials need to ask the tough questions and do some major introspection to not make the same stupid mistakes again.