COVID-19 lockdown revisionism

“Lockdowns”

Anti-lockdown discourse is common on social media, in political rhetoric and in news articles.4^–6 Lockdowns are often framed as a false binary of full lockdown versus no measures. However, democratic governments around the world attempted to strike a complex balance in their implementation of a blend of public health measures to address the threat of COVID-19, which varied as the pandemic and scientific evidence evolved. In some popular discourse, lockdowns have been framed as reckless and unscientific, as junk science, as an excuse to permanently oppress populations, as gaslighting with ever-shifting goalposts and as elements of various outlandish conspiracies.4^,7^,8 The notion that lockdowns did not work has been internalized by some as a truism. Both paid advertisements about lockdowns and posts on social media have gained widespread engagement.9 In news media, proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration — an open letter from 2020 that has been scientifically discredited — have vocally disputed public health measures.10

Some dissatisfaction with public health measures could relate to communication errors made by governments and others, and to the messy way in which scientific evidence accrued during the pandemic. Not every measure was implemented ideally in terms of its costs versus benefits. Competing priorities, such as child development versus risk of infection in relation to school closures, created spaces for reasonable disagreement, and also generated fertile ground for doubt and misinformation to develop. Careful audit of missteps and successes could usefully inform more targeted public health measures, if and when they are needed in the future. However, other powerful forces bear great responsibility for fostering lockdown revisionism. The capacity for social media to allow misinformation to be disproportionately amplified;11 the creation in popular media of platforms for and consequent legitimization of individuals who spread misinformation or disinformation, through false balance or otherwise;12 and the manner in which some politicians have generated or associated themselves with misleading rhetoric — famously, the convoy that occupied Ottawa in part of 2022 received prominent political support for its anti-lockdown messaging — are examples of such forces.

Measuring the effects of public health measures

Revisionism has been noted on a broad range of topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some actors have disparaged vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 as ineffective, despite incontrovertible evidence that they have prevented many millions of deaths worldwide.13 Now that variants have evolved to diminish vaccines’ ability to prevent viral transmission, some have claimed that vaccine mandates — many of which were instituted before the emergence of immune-evasive Omicron variants — were discriminatory in intent and did not support public health. Although vaccine mandates are clearly socially and scientifically complex, evidence has shown that they increased uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.14 Furthermore, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that vaccine mandates implemented in American colleges saved about 7300 lives during a period of just 13 weeks in fall 2021.15

Masking policies have also been reframed by some as a medically useless form of “lockdown,” despite having no impact on freedom of movement. Masking is a complex intervention to study, since the quality of masks and the contexts in which they are worn vary greatly. Masks and masking policies continue to generate much scientific and public debate.16^–19 It is clear, however, that high-quality masks can reduce pathogen spread and prevent infection.20 A case–control study of 1828 participants, conducted by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in 2022, found that self-reported respirator use in indoor public settings resulted in an 83% lower probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in California.21 Moreover, a study comparing English hospitals found that upgrading personal protective equipment (e.g., surgical masks) to airborne respiratory protection (e.g., FFP3 respirators) for staff caring for patients with COVID-19 was associated with a 33% reduced odds of hospital-acquired infection during the Delta wave.22 In addition, a difference-in-differences analysis of staggered policy implementation, studying school districts in Massachusetts, found that 29.4% of all COVID-19 cases in a 15-week period after the end of its statewide school masking policy in 2022 were linked to ending universal masking.23

Public health measures largely achieved the goals for which they were implemented, with a few exceptions.24^,25 Despite claims that they induced wide-spread economic harms, evidence related to this question is equivocal and further study is warranted. Severe restrictions — which were often relatively short term in democratic nations — clearly adversely affected some business sectors.26 However, concern about broader long-term economic harms from public health measures may be unjustified. One review found that Sweden’s relaxed public health response, which led to relatively high rates of hospital admissions and death, did not benefit its economy in the short term, compared with other Nordic countries.27 Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic caused and arguably continues to cause widespread global economic damage on its own, given the burden of disease and loss of consumer confidence. An economic analysis conducted by the European Central Bank suggested that swift action to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 may have helped economies.28