COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink

Abstract

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population’s movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. First, I explain how the initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects [i.e., groupthink]. Second, I summarize important information that has emerged relevant to the modeling, including about infection fatality rate, high-risk groups, herd immunity thresholds, and exit strategies. Third, I describe how reality started sinking in, with information on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, and information placing the number of deaths in context and perspective. Fourth, I present a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 that finds lockdowns are far more harmful to public health than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. I close with some suggestions for moving forward.

Safety and Reverence: How Roman Catholic Liturgy Can Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…In contrast, public health measures not based on the best scientific evidence, inaccurate, or exaggerated information could bring harm (Ioannidis, 2020;Pearce et al, 2020). This is especially important because framing the pandemic in global media often lacked coherence and tends to facilitate fearmongering due to obsession with breaking news (Joffe, 2021;Ogbodo et al, 2020). All this also significantly contributed to an infodemics of rumours, false information, and conspiracy theories (Islam et al, 2020;Levin, 2020;Pennycook et al, 2020) damaging both Christianity and the wider society.…”

“…For children under 10, the risk, incidence, and severity of the disease are much smaller than in adults (Boast, 2020;Choi et al, 2020) with minor transmission risk (Boast, 2020;Danis et al, 2020;Park et al, 2020). Context-specificity, stochastic factors and individual level variation play a major role in the global SARS-CoV-2 spread, emphasizing strategies focused on avoiding superspreading (Althouse et al, 2020;Endo et al, 2020;Fang et al, 2020;Sneppen et al, 2021;Van Damme et al, 2020) rather than blanket lockdowns (Bendavid et al, 2021;Joffe, 2021).…”

“…An initially overcareful response to the pandemic could have been justified since the precautionary principle (Martuzzi & Tickner, 2004) can be applied given huge uncertainty. Public decision-making was based on misinformed models in the absence of good quality data (Ioannidis et al, 2020;Joffe, 2021). Growing scientific evidence, improvement of mitigation measures and the arrival of efficient vaccines now allow for better, more balanced decisions.…”

The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in High Income Countries Such as Canada: A Better Way Forward Without Lockdowns

“…In order to deny charter freedoms, "reasonable limits [that are] demonstrably justified" are necessary, which requires the due-diligence of a cost-benefit analysis (74). Several reports find that lockdowns, even if they were to be highly effective, can be predicted to cause at least 5-10-times more harm to population wellbeing and deaths in the long-term than they prevent (52,53,(75)(76)(77). Harms include economic recession, unemployment, loneliness, poverty and food insecurity, deterioration of mental health with increased suicides and substance use, increased intimate partner violence and child abuse, lost education and future potential in children, delayed/disrupted health care for serious conditions, and increased societal inequality (75).…”

“…Several reports find that lockdowns, even if they were to be highly effective, can be predicted to cause at least 5-10-times more harm to population wellbeing and deaths in the long-term than they prevent (52,53,(75)(76)(77). Harms include economic recession, unemployment, loneliness, poverty and food insecurity, deterioration of mental health with increased suicides and substance use, increased intimate partner violence and child abuse, lost education and future potential in children, delayed/disrupted health care for serious conditions, and increased societal inequality (75). Framing a recession as being "the economy vs. lives" is a dangerous false dichotomy; as governments can spend less on the social determinants of health, including healthcare, education, roads, sanitation, housing, nutrition, vaccines, safety, social security nets, clean energy, etc., statistical lives will be lost in the years to come (75)(76)(77).…”