New Swedish Study Is Yet Another Study Showing How Lockdowns Inflicted Collateral Damage

I wrote on how COVID vaccine mandates likely created greater vaccine hesitancy with other vaccines earlier this week, so I figured I would continued with the theme of the COVID pandemic for this week. Since the beginning of the pandemic, proponents of lockdowns (who I have dubbed Lockdown Lovers) maligned Sweden for not imposing a lockdown. For the Lockdown Lovers, they thought Sweden was playing Russian Roulette with Swedish lives. Whether Sweden's approach was the correct one is a question I have asked since June 2020 and asked again in August 2021. In August 2022, I wrote that Sweden fared quite well both from a public health and economic standpoint. A recent study from Economic Affairs shows more positive affirmation that the Lockdown Lovers were wrong (Andersson and Jonung, 2024). Here are the key findings from this study:

• "Countries with more stringent lockdown measures did not experience a lower death rate, as might be expected a priori." This was a similar outcome in the U.S. context, mainly that states that implemented greater lockdowns did not see improved health outcomes. Sweden also fared relatively well in terms of COVID death rate and excess mortality rate. 
• "Compared with an average annual pre-pandemic growth rate of 2.6 percent cent, the Swedish economy lost approximately one year of growth. Countries with a higher lockdown rate lost between one and three years of economic growth...It was nevertheless possible to maintain a positive growth rate by avoiding the more severe lockdown measures applied in other countries." 
• "The more restrictions, the deeper was the downturn in the economy, and consequently, the larger was the budget deficit." The large price tag of lockdowns should not surprise us. When you shut down large swathes of the economy, there is less economic output. 
• "The social costs are many, such as increased mental illness through isolation in homes; increased violence mainly directed against women and children; and postponed and cancelled surgeries." I expressed a number of these concerns about mental and physical health in May 2020, and sadly, they came to fruition. 
• "School closures and the transition to online teaching impaired pupils' learning and could result in poorer opportunities later in life." 
• "The political costs deserve a separate analysis. The restrictions seem to have inspired growing polarization, conspiracy thinking, and protests and demonstrations in many countries. The lockdowns may thus have undermined liberal democracy and economic freedom. Freedom of the press was curtailed...In authoritarian countries, restrictions were used as a pretext for increased repression." 

Because of a low lockdown rate and intensity along with fiscal moderation, Sweden fared well during the pandemic. As the researchers conclude, "the lockdowns "had negligible positive health effects despite the evidence available at the time pointing towards the limited benefits of such broad measures." And they are right. The lockdowns were implemented in spite of no evidence in support of them. 

The lockdowns ended up having negligible positive outcomes, especially when compared to the gargantuan costs. Not only did lockdowns fail in saving the number of lives the Lockdown Lovers were hoping for, but there were economic, social, and political costs that we are still reeling from to this day. As vindicating as "I told you so" feels, what I would much rather have is the politicians and decision-makers held accountable and answer some important questions about how we let such an anti-science policy come into existence so we do not have this hell on earth thrusted upon humanity the next time there is a pandemic.