While public health experts insisted that draconian measures like ‘lockdowns’ were necessary throughout a global pandemic that more than 99% of the global population survived, there is disturbing new evidence that the lockdowns will wind up killing more people than the virus itself.
The Telegraph reported on Thursday that the effects of lockdowns may now be “killing more people than are dying of Covid,” based on official statistics.
“Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are currently dying each week from conditions other than the virus,” the British publication noted.
The Telegraph contacted the Department of Health, which has reportedly ordered an investigation into the alarming figures amid concern that the deaths are linked to “delays to and deferment of treatment for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.”
The publication points out that over the past two months, the number of excess deaths not from Covid is far higher than the number associated with the virus. Despite the appreciable ongoing public health damage from the lockdowns, there are renewed calls for Covid measures such as ‘compulsory face masks.’ Masks that are not certified for airborne pathogens have repeatedly been found to be statistically worthless for fighting Covid.
The British Heart Foundation reacted to the data trend by stating it was “deeply concerned,” and the Stroke Association admitted it had been anticipating an increase in deaths for a while.
Dr. Charles Levinson, the chief executive of Doctorcall, told the Telegraph it was seeing “far too many” cases of undetected cancers and cardiac problems, in addition to a “disturbing” numbers of mental health conditions.
“Hundreds and hundreds of people dying every week – what is going on?” he said. “Delays in seeking and receiving healthcare are no doubt the driving force, in my view.”
“Daily Covid statistics demanded the nation’s attention, yet these terrifying figures barely get a look in. A full and urgent government investigation is required immediately,” the doctor added.
“Figures released by the ONS on Tuesday showed that excess deaths are currently 14.4 per cent higher than the five-year average, equating to 1,350 more deaths than usual in the week ending Aug 5,” the Telegraph noted. “Although 469 deaths were because of Covid, the remaining 881 have not been explained and the ONS does not break down the remaining deaths by cause.”
“Since the beginning of June, the ONS has recorded nearly 10,000 more deaths than the five-year average – around 1,089 a week – none of which is linked to Covid.,” the report went on. “The figure is more than three times the number of people who died because of the virus over the same period, which stood at 2,811. Even analysis that takes into account ageing population changes has identified a substantial ongoing excess.”
As a National Bureau of Economic Research study found in 2021, lockdowns may end up killing children around the world for years to come due to the ensuing global economic contraction, particularly in poor countries.
“[I]n poor countries, where the population is relatively young, the economic contraction associated with lockdowns could potentially lead to 1.76 children’s lives being lost for every covid-19 fatality averted, probably because wellbeing suffers as incomes decline,” the Washington Times summarized.
“What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose,” the Times notes. “Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as ‘sheltering in place,’ or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.”
“[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives,” NBER stated in blunt terms. “To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP [Shelter-in-Place] policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”
“So, the lockdowns didn’t reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths,” the authors concluded. A newer Lancet study has echoed those findings.
“Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21,” explains, “the magnitude and distribution of many other causes of death might have changed because of social, economic, and behavioural responses to the pandemic, including strict lockdowns. Under these conditions, excess mortality can provide a more accurate assessment of the total mortality impact of the COVID-19 pandemic than reported COVID-19 deaths.”
“Our excess mortality estimates reflect the full impact of the pandemic on mortality around the world, and not only deaths directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the article explains about its model, which incorporated all-cause mortality reports for 74 countries and territories and 266 subnational locations.
The main finding of the study was its estimate that about three times as many people died worldwide due to the “global pandemic” than is suggested by Covid-related mortality figures.
“Although reported COVID-19 deaths between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021, totalled 5.94 million worldwide, we estimate that 18.2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period. The global all-age rate of excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic was 120.3 deaths (113·1–129·3) per 100 000 of the population, and excess mortality rate exceeded 300 deaths per 100,000 of the population in 21 countries. The number of excess deaths due to COVID-19 was largest in the regions of south Asia, north Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe.”
However, the “global pandemic” did not directly cause millions of these estimated deaths; the Covid policies, such as lockdowns, contributed greatly to the final tallies, as the Lancet study itself notes.
An exhaustive Johns Hopkins University comparative analysis published in January found that strict lockdowns failed to significantly reduce Covid-related deaths.
“Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University,” the Washington Times reported. “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.”
“The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors added. “Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.”
“These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors concluded.
"*" indicates required fields
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.