What We’ve Learned About So-Called ‘Lockdowns’ and the COVID-19 Pandemic
SciCheck Digest
Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have found government restrictions early in the pandemic, such as business closures and physical distancing measures, reduced COVID-19 cases and/or mortality, compared with what would have happened without those measures. But conservative news outlets and commentators have seized on a much-criticized, unpublished working paper that concluded “lockdowns” had only a small impact on mortality as definitive evidence the restrictions don’t work.
Multiple lines of evidence back the use of face masks to limit the spread of the coronavirus.
Lab tests, for example, show that masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads. Analyses of people who came into contact with those with COVID-19 have also found mask-wearing to be associated with a reduced risk of contracting the virus. Numerous studies similarly document an association between self-reported mask wearing and control of the virus in a community or the implementation of a mask mandate and a subsequent decline in COVID-19 cases.
While each of these study types has its limitations, collectively, most experts agree that masks are likely to reduce transmission of the coronavirus and should be used by members of the public when around other people. Some research also indicates face masks can protect the wearer as well.
Masks, however, should not be viewed as foolproof, as no mask is thought to offer complete protection to the wearer or to others. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people wear the most protective mask that fits well and can be worn consistently. Loosely woven cloth masks are the least protective. Layered, tightly woven cloth masks offer more protection, while well-fitting surgical masks and KN95 respirators provide even more protection and N95 respirators are the most protective. For more, see our SciCheck story, “The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19.”
Full Story
In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as the virus spread around the globe, many countries implemented restrictions on movement and social gatherings in an effort to flatten the curve — or reduce sharp spikes in caseloads to avoid overwhelming health care facilities. Without vaccines or evidence-based treatments, these non-pharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs, were the only public health measures available for months to combat the pandemic.
The more extreme measures — widespread business closures and stay-at-home orders, generally called “lockdowns,” though there’s no set definition — clearly came with economic and social costs, as the World Health Organization says. But the WHO “recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time.”
There have been a lot of studies assessing whether and to what extent so-called “lockdowns” and various NPIs have been effective, and plenty of research that has concluded these measures can limit transmission, or reduce cases and deaths. For instance, a study published in Nature in June 2020 found that “major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission” in 11 European countries. It estimated what would have happened if the transmission of the virus hadn’t been reduced, finding that 3.1 million deaths “have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.” The estimate doesn’t account for behavior changes or the impact of overwhelmed health systems.
In May 2020, the same journal that estimated the number of cases in mainland
You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.
Start your free 30 days