“This study is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that the cure was no worse than the disease,” said the professor involved in the study.
Coronavirus pandemic from the outset, critics have said restrictions on outward movement, or so-called lockdowns, cause more harm than the coronavirus itself. Analysis of global health data shows that there is very little evidence for the idea, says the British newspaper The Guardian.
The analysis has been published In the journal BMJ Global Health. It looked at claims that restrictions on outward movement would cause more harm than the coronavirus itself. The review was conducted by assessing the impact of restrictions on mortality, standard health services, and mental health.
As part of the study, countries with severe restrictions and few cases of coronavirus were evaluated. The researchers looked at whether the restrictions caused mortality, the professor who conducted the analysis said Gavin Yamey From Duke University.
Over-mortality means that more deaths than usual occur at any given time in a given country or region.
94 countries based on data collected on causes of death, researchers found that no mortality was found in New Zealand and Australia, for example, last year. On the other hand, in Brazil, Sweden, Russia, and parts of the United States, which imposed only minor restrictions, mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic.
“This study is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that the cure was no worse than the disease,” Yamey said.
“It seems that there were fewer deaths in states that acted quickly and decisively than in previous years. One study showed that restrictions may have reduced mortality by as much as 6 percent just because of the non-infectivity of the flu. ”
On the other hand, the mortality data suggest that the harm caused by the restrictions cannot be ruled out or found to be of net benefit, as high mortality was also observed in countries such as Britain, which imposed severe restrictions.
Second the subject of the study was health services.
Although the data show that the number of visitors to non-coronavirus visits decreased significantly, overcrowded health services and a high risk of infection reduced people’s willingness to use the services, the researchers estimated.
“According to the current evidence, neither cause-effect relationship can be validly justified.”
The relationship between mental health and movement restrictions has been highlighted, but the relationship between widespread coronavirus spread and depression and anxiety has often been viewed through the fingers, the researchers note.
“Distance school clearly has an impact on children’s mental health, but so does the loss of a loved one on the coronavirus.”
In the study the economic impact of the restrictions was not taken into account. However, it states that restrictions on outdoor movement are most likely to have been negatively affected.
However, researchers say there is no place in the world where restrictions on outdoor movement combined with small numbers of corona cases have caused high mortality. According to the researchers, this convincingly shows that the restrictions themselves could not have been worse than the spread of the coronavirus, at least in the short term.
Doctor of the University of Cardiff Dean Burnettin according to the study shows that many of the problems associated with restrictions on movement are indistinguishable from those related to the pandemic itself. Burnett himself was not included in the research team.
“The most important thing that the study reveals is that‘ choosing ’between movement restrictions and a pandemic is really a flawed premise,” Burnett commented.
“A pandemic exists, whether there were restrictions on outdoor mobility or not. Restrictions can have a number of negative effects on mental health and there is little or no reason to say that the consequences would be any worse than in a situation without restrictions. ”
“It’s much more likely that the opposite would be true.”