Containment measures in Europe and the United States have had little or no impact on Covid-19 mortality, experts say. This shock conclusion comes from a study carried out by three economists from the American University John Hopkins, made famous since the start of the pandemic by its statistics on the progression of the disease. This is a meta-analysis, i.e. an aggregation of data from various sector studies on this theme. The researchers come to a clear conclusion: “Containments (Editor’s note the authors designate by “lockdown” all situations “where at least one mandatory non-pharmaceutical intervention (INP) is established by a government, not only confinement at home”) must be dismissed out of hand as an instrument of pandemic policy.”
Their calculations, which relate to a corpus published before July 1, 2020, i.e. on the first wave, lead them to suggest that the various containment measures only reduced mortality by 0.2%. On the other hand, they believe that they have had devastating effects. They have “helped reduce economic activity, increase unemployment, reduce school attendance, cause political unrest, participate in domestic violence, and undermine liberal democracy.”
More effective self-discipline
The researchers selected a total of 34 studies, out of the 1048 at their disposal, to come to this conclusion. They note that their results do not highlight the reasons for the observed ineffectiveness. They therefore put forward various hypotheses. Among these, the authors explain that voluntary behavioral changes (washing hands, respecting social distance, etc.) have an impact ten times greater than measures imposed by the government (closures of businesses, ban on gatherings, etc.). .). However, to return to the case of businesses, if people are not careful, whether they contaminate themselves in stores classified as essential or others, ultimately makes no difference.
Economists even believe that confinement can be counterproductive: feeling more secure, individuals relax their behavioral vigilance. Finally, they note that often, confinement measures such as bans on assembly having limited access to safe places, that is to say in the open air, populations have been pushed to meet in less safe places, indoors.
“I have the feeling that its authors wanted to throw a stone into the pond, but we need this kind of study,” explains the Swiss vaccinologist, Alessandro Diana. He nevertheless questions the possibility that a bias exists because all the authors are economists. Point-blank, however interesting he finds this analysis, he wonders about the variables used. “The problem is so multifactorial that it is enough for one to be missing to distort the results. I note in particular that the study relates to the first wave, at a time when the mask was not compulsory. However, we now know that the most effective measure would have been to have the entire population wear an FFP2 mask. Moreover, at the time studied, cortisone had not yet been used to treat serious ailments.
The professor raises a final question: “Did the authors take into account the diversity of healthcare systems and their robustness? We have all seen how the Italian hospital system has been overwhelmed. In other words, it is possible that confinement does not change anything, in terms of mortality, in the United States, but it seems to me much more doubtful in India, for example”.