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

Abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused tragic morbidity and mortality. In attempt to reduce this morbidity and mortality, most countries implemented population-wide lockdowns. Here we show that the lockdowns were based on several flawed assumptions, including “no one is protected until everyone is protected,” “lockdowns are highly effective to reduce transmission,” “lockdowns have a favorable cost-benefit balance,” and “lockdowns are the only effective option.” Focusing on the latter, we discuss that Emergency Management principles provide a better way forward to manage the public emergency of the pandemic. Specifically, there are three priorities including the following: first, protect those most at risk by separating them from the threat (mitigation); second, ensure critical infrastructure is ready for people who get sick (preparation and response); and third, shift the response from fear to confidence (recovery). We argue that, based on Emergency Management principles, the age-dependent risk from SARS-CoV-2, the minimal (at best) efficacy of lockdowns, and the terrible cost-benefit trade-offs of lockdowns, we need to reset the pandemic response. We can manage risk and save more lives from both COVID-19 and lockdowns, thus achieving far better outcomes in both the short- and long-term.

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

“…In general, these studies have limitations given that no randomized trial has assessed this question and modeling, or observational studies leave substantial uncertainties and are subject to selective reporting and interpretation (227). A meta-analysis has found very small benefits of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality rates (16), and cost-benefit analyses find that the costs of lockdowns (including what we outline above) far outweigh any potential benefit that may occur (6,228). Debate and disagreement will likely continue, given that assessments on the relative benefits of lockdown are based largely of weak observational data under very complex circumstances.…”

“…Studies that suggest substantial benefits of lockdown, typically have flaws or limitations that seriously question the validity, e.g., their counterfactual is based on tenuous assumptions in forecasting models ( 88 ), they use interrupted time-series designs without a stable long-term period before and after intervention and without controlling for confounders ( 89 , 90 ), and/or have no control non-intervention group (i.e., not a difference-in-difference approach) ( 89 , 90 ), and other flaws ( 16 ). Furthermore, it was shown that lockdowns were very costly economically, but probably did not save lives ( 6 , 91 ). Despite this, citizens generally believed many unfounded COVID-19 scientific claims leading to strong support of NPIs ( 92 ).…”

“…While in the last 25 years, 1.1 billion people were lifted from poverty through economic growth ( 222 ), during the COVID-19 crisis global extreme poverty rose sharply and in October 2021 it was estimated that 100 million additional people were living in poverty ( 223 ). Very early on in the pandemic, warnings were expressed that the negative effects may outweigh possible positive ones ( 10 – 12 , 57 ) and ways to optimize decision-making ( 13 ) and alternative ways forward were offered ( 6 , 224 ). Note that other authors disagree and argue that the NPIs are proportional and have substantial benefits [e.g., ( 225 , 226 )].…”

“…Many countries opted for long-term strict and aggressive NPIs ( 5 ). However, there is little proof that most aggressive measures were more efficient than less disruptive, focused measures [e.g., ( 6 – 8 )]. Some adopted measures may even have severe negative consequences [for reviews see e.g., ( 6 , 9 , 10 )].…”

“…However, there is little proof that most aggressive measures were more efficient than less disruptive, focused measures [e.g., ( 6 – 8 )]. Some adopted measures may even have severe negative consequences [for reviews see e.g., ( 6 , 9 , 10 )]. Furthermore, decision-makers have overly focused on one problem, COVID-19, instead of a more holistic approach ( 11 – 13 ).…”