A new study from the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago has analysed the impact of stay-at-home orders on infections and deaths in U.S. states and found they made no difference.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the scientific journal PNAS, found stay-at-home orders (also known as shelter-in-place orders or SIPs) were not associated with lower infections or deaths; furthermore, they were actually associated with a slight increase in infections and deaths, although this was not statistically significant. The results are summarised in the charts below, where dots above the dashed line indicate an increase and dots below a decrease. Red dots are statistically significant results.
The authors suggest that stay-at-home orders have no impact on infections or deaths because they have little to no impact on mobility. Isolating the impact of stay-at-home orders from existing mobility trends, they estimate that the orders themselves contributed a reduction in mobility of just 0.7% compared to pre-pandemic levels. This is largely, they say, because people were already reducing their mobility as much as they were able or willing to.
The mobility data (from mobile phone movement) for U.S. states, with the date of the stay-at-home order shown as a dashed line ands its removal as a dotted line, are shown below.
The authors observe that if stay-at-home orders aren’t affecting mobility, it’s difficult to see how they will affect anything else: “If SIP [shelter-in-place] orders did not have large effects on behaviour, it is hard to imagine how they could have had large effects on COVID-19 cases and deaths.” They add: “The health benefits of SIP orders were likely limited because many people were already social distancing before the introduction of SIP orders.”
They suggest that voluntary mobility reduction and social distancing made a difference to outcomes, though do not commit to saying how much. Noting that nationwide there was around a 50% decrease in mobility between February and April 2020, they state: “The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease.” However, their results, they say, “have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.”
The model-based studies which claim stay-at-home lockdown orders saved thousands of lives are therefore in error, they argue.
The previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing – SIP practice as distinct from policy – was ineffective.
The study was written and submitted prior to the appearance in Nature this March of the study by R.F. Savaris and colleagues which in effect looked at “SIP practice as distinct from policy”. It found that actually staying at home made little to no difference either:
We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.
I have noted before that it is important to be sceptical not just about lockdowns but about social distancing as well. This is because if the objection to lockdowns is simply that they’re unnecessary because people voluntarily lock themselves down anyway, and that it is this voluntary social isolation that stops the virus from spreading, then we are forced to agree with those who claim that the death toll so far is just a small part of what’s to come when social distancing ends and we all go back to mixing freely.
In other words, it is central to the sceptical argument that not just lockdowns but social distancing is largely ineffective at slowing or preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Drop that and we have to admit that social distancing has so far prevented the population from feeling the full force of the pandemic and that returning to normal will bring a deadly new wave of infections (or concede that it is only vaccines that are keeping a ‘third wave’ at bay and that in the absence of the vaccines being invented we should all continue to socially isolate).
Of course, social distancing would be effective at preventing transmission if everyone actually isolated themselves completely. But the crucial point is that more often than not that doesn’t happen, particularly in contexts where the most vulnerable are located, in hospitals and care homes. With the main mode of transmission being via aerosols building up in the air of poorly ventilated spaces, staying two metres apart does nothing to protect from such exposure (and neither do masks).
The gap between what the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature says about lockdowns and what governments, their scientific advisers and the wider population believe about lockdowns is now very large. To have such a gap between data and scientific evidence on the one hand and public policy and social beliefs on the other is highly unstable and dangerous for a society. It results in intensifying social divisions as increasing numbers of people feel they cannot any longer go along with what the Government is saying, while on the other side the Government and its supporters increasingly resort to force and coercion because evidence and persuasion are not available to them. Yet admitting they are wrong is psychologically too difficult and personally too costly.
Professor Jay Bhattacharya recently came to the defence of his colleague Professor Sunetra Gupta, who had been attacked by a BBC interviewer for questioning the efficacy of lockdowns. He said: “There is a growing scientific consensus that the lockdowns have failed to control the spread of Covid in nearly every country that has imposed them.”
This is absolutely right. But the myth of lockdowns as an effective means of disease control persists anyway, and it is those who oppose them by quoting scientific evidence who are censored as dangerous and those who promote them by ignoring scientific evidence that are praised and listened to. It’s a topsy-turvy world, and a recipe for trouble.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I think we should stop mentioing the flu is as bad a covid, else the bastards will do lockdown for flu!
Guarantee there’ll be more lockdowns, be it for covid, variants flu or something else, until these villains are dealt with.
Good morning Dr Jekyll.
If what motivates you is going to the pub, as you say, then yes, they will the moment there is a new flu. More vaccines, more coercion.
But you’ll be OK, Fon, since you are sure that the vaccines are safe, the state is trustworthy, and you are happy to do whatever it asks, and force children to take risks too.
I thought the vaccine would deal with that problem fon?
The injections will make the common cold (all varieties) deadly to the injected.so that ship has sailed
But the flu has been eradicated hasn’t it?
When they said it is not the flu, they are correct. That is caused by a totally different species of virus. Covid is caused by a coronavirus, so it will end up like the other endemic disease affecting humanity, the common cold.
Pro:
Big Pharma has finally come up with a vaccine for the new common cold.
Con:
The economy was destroyed out of fear of the new common cold.
BTW WHO changed their definition of pandemic before SARS-CoV-2 hit the scene, so a pandemic does not have to result in mass death. And they get to declare whether a pandemic exists. Now we can have the common cold pandemic, the flu pandemic, the new common cold pandemic, the herpes virus pandemic, … Kerching!
you’ve changed your tune – have we converted you fon?
Thanks Will for an excellent article. I think he is correct that also SD has a marginal effect or no effect at all. The nosocomial effect reflected in the age structure of the population is evident. But there seems to be other factors in play. Seeing curves bending at the same time in different countries with vastly different responses also points to outside influences like weather, latitude, Vitamin D . The virus is imitating the flu virus with so many unknown elements how it is really spread. Below discussion of the US reflects how unstoppable this virus has been Interesting table of mortality in different US states. Amazing that Florida with one of the oldest population in US is so low. They must somehow have protected the elderly. Florida and New York have the same population. But LD or not LD , densely populated metropolitan areas or sparsely populated prairie states seems not to play a significant role, see New York compared to South Dakota. Many Southern states with high mortality but surprisingly few in North Carolina surrounded by states with higher mortality. Hawaii lowest but perhaps the population has resistance to a similar virus as East Asians? So genetic,… Read more »
Swedenborg: do you think there’s any evidence for air quality playing any role in the disease spread, or at least in the severity of symptoms?
A year ago I would have said almost certainly less, but some of this data – surprisingly to me – seems to be saying no. But I’ll go where the data takes me.
One hypothesis of mine I haven’t seen contradicted yet: coastal areas that are not affected badly by air pollution (e.g. such as New York is) do not seem to get hit hard. Again, happy to be corrected, but I reckon the virus doesn’t like the sea air!
“ coastal areas”
Actually – note that all the European states that were relatively badly affected last year were maritime, and mostly on the western seaboard.
I wonder if there any drop-off in cases/deaths in populations actually close to the coast – a few miles for example, or even 20-30 miles.
It appeared very early in 2020 down here in Devon-Cornwall (some of the early UK cases were here), but never took off. That begs an explanation
Watching Zach Bush videos may also add to your thoughts. He talks about pollution and the use of herbicides.
The current situation in India could also point to air pollution and the number of people already suffering as a result.
There was at least one study from a year ago, or maybe a little more, which found a correlation between particulate matter in the atmosphere and severe covid cases.
I’m speculating, but it may be that many of the elderly who spend a bit of time in Florida during the winter etc to avoid problems further north, are well off enough to have a reasonably good state of health to start with. Money talks, as ever.
Lots of vitamin D in Florida too
I believe they are called ‘Snowbirds’.
Those who oppose them are censored because some very rich and very powerful people want to make sure we live our lives via their channels.. socialise on social media as opposed to in real life or buy on Amazon as opposed to buying on the high street… Silicon Valley owns you! Their power is now influencing politics and every aspect of how we live our lives. Part 2 is climate change where they will once again press us into become ever more dependent on them under the guise that it is better for the planet.
An excellent article, especially the last three paragraphs. The Gov losing it’s reputation is always hard, and likely to cause all sorts of other problems, when they lose influence across a wide range of issues. If they got this wrong, what about the rest? These days, I don’t trust them much at all.
Some of us have always been sceptical about the recent metastasis of the extortion funded sector being good for the nation.
I don’t even trust them ‘much’, I don’t trust them at all.
Another great article from Will. What makes his pieces especially valuable is that he invariably goes beyond merely reporting some finding or other but interprets such findings in a wider context. An example in this article: The gap between what the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature says about lockdowns and what governments, their scientific advisers and the wider population believe about lockdowns is now very large. To have such a gap between data and scientific evidence on the one hand and public policy and social beliefs on the other is highly unstable and dangerous for a society. It results in intensifying social divisions as increasing numbers of people feel they cannot any longer go along with what the Government is saying, while on the other side the Government and its supporters increasingly resort to force and coercion because evidence and persuasion are not available to them. Yet admitting they are wrong is psychologically too difficult and personally too costly. How very true, and very well put. This illustrates the danger into which we as a society are standing, and one which almost no commentators are prepared to recognise, let alone contemplate the implications. If we go down the vaccine passport route… Read more »
Slight tangent here but walking the dogs this am a schoolgirl saw us and rather than going past in the road (there was no traffic and it’s a quiet area) she walked 20 yards up a side road and back, the look on her face said it all . She clearly thought we were one enormous viral load waiting to pounce. What have we become when even youngsters are thinking of other human beings as walking plague factories. Sad and dangerous for the future.
Similar experience a couple of days ago of fear-driven behaviour here in Spain Epi. Two young women were strolling with a pram down an open street at right angles to he sea front where I was walking alone and unmasked. Breezy, sunny day, with not a soul in sight within a km. The masked duo, on spotting me, scuttled into reverse and shimmied back 50yds from whence they came to await my passing. How very sad.
The younger generation are going to be mental cases and its all down to Johnson and Hancock.
Yes.
There was a glitch here for a while after the third lockdown but it was mostly old folks looking terrified masked up in the street.
Not always though, I met a young guy in a mask on the towpath who nearly stepped into the river to avoid me. On the other hand there have been some drinking beer and smoking spliffs, they’ll probably be OK
One of my experiences:
Two elderly women chatting on the pavement, stood as far apart as the concrete would allow. I walk between them and one of the women steps back onto the road and almost gets struck by a car.
On the radio this morning there was a correspondent saying that the third jab will be different to the the first two jabs, if you’ve had the Pfizer jabs you’ll get the AZ jab, if you’ve had the AZ jabs you’ll get the Pfizer.
“It’s thought that this will fill you will so many antibodies it’ll make you immune to all the variants” he said with a casual tone.
Thought … THOUGHT.
It will fill you with something alright! They are saying you can get it the same time as the flu jab but in the other arm! I say if the flu has been eradicated then the flu jab is superfluous isn’t it?
The 1984 jab is generating thousands of adverse reactions and now it is being suggested that it should be given along with a ‘flu jab. Has this concoction gone through full clinical trials?
And as Belladonna states above ‘flu has been eradicated….
….hasn’t it?
Silly me. This is not about public health it’s about public Death isn’t it?
“Has this concoction gone through full clinical trials?” – we are almost at the point now where, given the vaxx manufacturers are indemnified from lawsuits, that it doesn’t have to. I am very scared for the future of medicine. My trust and faith in doctors is now zero – my scepticism has spread from lockdowns to other areas of lifee!
So if the Pfizer fatal adverse reactions didn’t get you, have a go with AstraZeneca (and vice versa).
It’s probable that we all, to a lesser or greater extent, have some naturally-acquired immunity to sars viruses built up over a lifetime of coughs and colds, which is possibly why some get this virus but are asymptomatic, while many others show very few symptoms and recover quickly. If, as seems to be the plan, we are to be persuaded that we need extra jabs, follow-up jabs, jabs for things we never knew existed, what’s going to happen is that the body’s natural immune system will become overloaded, compromised and weakened, the horrific outcome of which would be that the human race will succumb to the smallest illness and no longer have the natural ability to fight it. Dying from the common cold will become commonplace. I have refused the vaccine because I had covid very early on and a subsequent blood test showed a full antibody count, giving me T-cell immunity, and those T-cells will immediately produce new antibodies at the merest whiff of a return of the virus. However, it’s been shown that when the vaccine is administered to someone who has already had covid, the vaccine starts to attack those T-cells. They are trying to make us… Read more »
Could you please let me know the test you had to cover anti-bodies and T-cells. I had a nasty virus early 2020 and have so far resisted the jab …. thank you.
A good article and rehearsal of yet more evidence that the NPIs were not effective – which we knew as much as we ‘know’ anything. It also underlines that those pre-2020 strategies that were chucked in the bin were essentially correct. Normal distancing behaviour and self-imposed quarantine for the symptomatic are what can do the necessary business. “Government and its supporters increasingly resort to force and coercion because evidence and persuasion are not available to them. Yet admitting they are wrong is psychologically too difficult and personally too costly.” Yes. But – hard for a vaccine enthusiast to admit – a major interest is in flogging a snake oil on which billions have already been spent. At the lowest and kindest level of interpretation – that panicky unseen purchase is massive financial egg on face. I’ve just been looking again at the curve of the mortality rate. We have absolutely no observational support for the efficacy of the vaccine when the curves of the two available upturns are considered. The only possible correlation is with the beginning of the jabs and the sharp upturn in mortality by Christmas (after a downturn). Of course – health warning : correlation is not… Read more »
If the technocrats want to stop the waves permanently, they should consult the expert – King Cnut (anagram of Ferguson?)