Skip to main content

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns


Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective.

A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more harmful than the virus the lockdown was supposed to prevent in the first place. These experts call for allowing less vulnerable populations resume life as normal while shielding the vulnerable. This will build herd immunity, which will relatively quickly allow everyone to resume life as normal. While some “experts” have decried this approach as foolhardy and dangerous, evidence from Sweden and U.S. states like South Dakota suggests this is the best approach. 

The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19, Dr. David Nabarro, also came out against lockdowns, urging world leaders to “Stop using lockdown as your primary control method.” Dr. Nabarro pointed to the devastating consequences of lockdowns, such as how it’s harmed tourism industries and small farmers. The economic consequences of the shutdowns have been severe. The World Bank estimates 100 million people have been thrown into extreme poverty due to coronavirus, marking the first global increase in extreme poverty in over two decades. As Dr. Nabarro said, "Remember, lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."

According to a study by the American Institute for Economic Research, the states that have fared best with COVID are the ones that did not lockdown their citizens and allowed businesses to remain open. The states that inflicted draconian lockdown measures on their citizens, such as New York and Michigan, have the highest deaths per capita in the country. In fact, these pro-lockdown states implemented policies that not only failed to reduce the risk for citizens but lead to increased risks for the most vulnerable, such as mandating that nursing homes accept COVID-positive residents back from hospitals.  States that did not institute lockdowns are also doing better economically, boasting relatively low unemployment numbers while their pro-lockdown counterparts still struggled with high unemployment. In September, South Dakota had an unemployment rate of 4.1% while New York has an unemployment rate of 9.7%, and New York City has an unemployment rate of 14.1%.

Sweden is another example of how the coronavirus can be controlled without draconian lockdown measures. Compared to other European countries that did shutdown, Sweden has a lower mortality rate. Not only is their mortality rate lower than some, but life has continued as normal in Sweden. People still have the ability to work, they can go out and gather with friends and family, and students are able to go to school. Like South Dakota, Sweden trusted its citizens to make the best choices for themselves and their families.

With all this evidence, why are there still people advocating continued lockdowns? Most likely, politicians want a concrete action to point to and say, “Look I did something.” It gives them something to campaign on. Unfortunately, good politics does not always make good policy. Good policy would focus on protecting the most vulnerable, those over 70 or with comorbidities, while letting everyone else resume life as normal. The survival rates for people under 70; 0-19 is 99.997%, 20-49 is 99.98%, and 50-69 is 99.5%.  

Those advocating for continued lockdowns, whether at the state level or on a national scale, do so from a position of immense privilege, much like celebrities posting "we're all in this together" videos from the comfort of their mansions. They don’t have to worry about the effects of shutdowns, like the loss of livelihoods and an inability to educate their children. They are not the ones who are at risk of sliding into extreme poverty. The choice between saving lives and saving the economy is a false one. States like South Dakota and countries like Sweden prove this. It is time for politicians to look at the actual data and realize that COVID fearmongering and economic shutdowns are not helpful and are, in fact, harmful to people.

Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best