A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality

Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung () and Steve Hanke
Additional contact information
Jonas Herby: Centre for Political Studies
Steve Hanke: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise

No 200, Studies in Applied Economics from The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise

Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

Keywords: COVID-19; lockdown; non-pharmaceutical interventions; mortality; systematic review; meta-analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D19 I18 I38 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 61 pages
Date: 2022-01-21
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A- ... VID-19-Mortality.pdf Full text (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality - II (2022)
Working Paper: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality – II (2022)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ris:jhisae:0200

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Studies in Applied Economics from The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Steve H. Hanke ().