Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Humanities
Open Access

COVID-19 lockdown revisionism

Blake Murdoch and Timothy Caulfield
CMAJ April 17, 2023 195 (15) E552-E554; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.221543
Blake Murdoch
Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy Caulfield
Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The term “lockdown” has become a powerful and perverted word in the infodemic about democracies’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown, as used in public discourse, has expanded to include any public health measure, even if it places little to no restriction on social mobility or interaction. For example, a working literature review and meta-analysis on the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality misleadingly defined lockdowns as “the imposition of at least 1 compulsory non-pharmaceutical intervention.”1 This working paper therefore conflated mandatory isolation for people with confirmed infections and masking policies with heavy-handed limitations on freedom of movement, and since it gained viral fame, it has helped fuel calls for “no more lockdowns.” This working paper has been highly critiqued and is less convincing than comparative assessments of health measures, like the Oxford Stringency Index.2,3

Here, we discuss the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures, which we refer to as “lock-down revisionism,” and how this phenomenon has damaged trust in public health initiatives designed to keep people safer.

“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

Addressing the impact of lockdown revisionism

Lockdown revisionism creates a false impression of public health interventions, which can damage trust in public health measures and institutions. Misleading characterizations of individual pandemic measures by some high-profile actors have — explicitly or implicitly — portrayed governments that have implemented these public health measures as autocratic regimes that have suspended rights, strictly controlled mobility and utterly oppressed their populations. They also misleadingly reframe all public health measures as extreme. In reality, government public health responses have varied along a broad continuum, and most government mandates did not involve shutting down social activities beyond the first year of the pandemic.

Lockdown revisionism has tended to frame public health measures as a form of subjugation by elites, while positioning public health as oppressive and fundamentally anti-individualistic. In this way, it supports binary thinking and eschews a nuanced understanding of freedom in liberal democracies, which acknowledges the need for certain limitations (e.g., speed limits, food safety laws, anti-smoking policies).

The problematic reframing of public health measures on social media, in the popular press and by politicians contributes to real harm and has set a dangerous precedent. If this narrative becomes dominant, it will further reduce confidence in public institutions, and will hamper acceptance of and compliance with measures needed to save lives in future pandemics. Inaccurate historical accounts of public health responses should not be normalized.

Physicians can challenge lockdown revisionism at an individual level. Researchers, clinicians and public health professionals can participate directly in public discourse to both debunk and prebunk misinformation in a timely manner. Public health officials must use evidence-informed strategies to carefully communicate the importance of early intervention during viral surges. Governments could consider strategies — including increased regulatory scrutiny — to address the risks of misinformation being amplified on social media. The popular press should avoid engaging in false balance and take care in selecting the voices it amplifies. Politicians who spread misinformation should be publicly held to account by constituents, journalists and experts. Regulators of health professions should enforce evidence-based standards among their memberships.

People everywhere should be armed with the critical thinking and media literacy skills necessary to see through the noise.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Marco Zenone for his help in selecting examples of anti-lockdown discourse, and Robyn Hyde-Lay for her comments and suggestions.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Blake Murdoch reports a role as privacy officer of CANImmunize. Timothy Caulfield is represented by Speakers’ Spotlight. No other competing interests were declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Funding: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (RES0058651, RES0050488 & RES0056515), the Public Health Agency of Canada (RES0055237) and Alberta Innovates (RES0050756).

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is non-commercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Herby J,
    2. Jonung L,
    3. Hanke SH
    . A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality. Studies in Applied Economics 2022;200:1–62.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Banholzer N,
    2. Lison A,
    3. Vach W
    . Comment on ‘A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lock-downs on COVID-19 mortality’. [preprint] SSRN 2022 Mar. 21. doi: :https://ssrn.com/abstract=4032477.
  3. ↵
    COVID-19 government response tracker. Oxford (UK): University of Oxford. Available: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/covid-19-government-response-tracker (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  4. ↵
    1. Middelkoop W
    . It’s official. WEF explains: COVID lockdowns, social distancing, contact tracing was a “test” to see if we will accept the “social responsibility” of “tracking personal carbon emissions”. Twitter 2022 Oct. 1. Available: https://twitter.com/wmiddelkoop/status/1576080309635923968?s=20&t=ooAUBDLz0yp1Qwrx8OP7ZQ (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
    1. Poilievre P
    . COVID has become a never-ending excuse for power-hungry authorities to replace our freedom with their control. Enough. Reopen our businesses, let our truckers drive and restore freedom for all. Twitter 2022 Jan. 23. Available: https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1485454969444737025?s=20 (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  5. ↵
    1. Bhattacharya J
    . Anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration vindicated, but much too late. National Post [Toronto]. 2023 Jan 25. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/anti-lockdown-great-barrington-declaration-vindicated-but-much-too-late (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  6. ↵
    KUSI News. Dr. Scott Atlas says Dr. Anthony Fauci’s lockdown policies were reckless and unscientific. YouTube 2022 Aug. 23. Available: https://youtu.be/5qrxUGy4_hM (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  7. ↵
    1. Richarz A
    . On COVID restrictions, our governments keep firing up the gaslights and shifting the goal-posts. CBC News 2021 Dec. 3, updated 2021 Dec. 4. Available: https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-covid-measures-gaslighting-shifting-goalposts-1.6268380 (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  8. ↵
    Canada Strong and Free Network. Do lock-downs work? Facebook 2021 Apr. 24. Available: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=279964767002524 (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  9. ↵
    1. Zenone M,
    2. Snyder J,
    3. Marcon A,
    4. et al
    . Analyzing natural herd immunity media discourse in the United Kingdom and the United States. PLoS Glob Public Health 2022;2:e0000078.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Vosoughi S,
    2. Roy D,
    3. Aral S
    . The spread of true and false news online. Science 2018;359:1146–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Caulfield T,
    2. Bubela T,
    3. Kimmelman J,
    4. et al
    . Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science. Facets 2021;6:403–23.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Watson OJ,
    2. Barnsley G,
    3. Toor J,
    4. et al
    . Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2022;22:1293–302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Karaivanov A,
    2. Kim D,
    3. Lu SE,
    4. et al
    . COVID-19 vaccination mandates and vaccine uptake. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6:1615–24.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Acton RK,
    2. Cao W,
    3. Cook EE,
    4. et al
    . The effect of vaccine mandates on disease spread: evidence from college COVID-19 mandates. Working paper 30303. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2022. Available: https://www.nber.org/papers/w30303 (accessed 2022 Oct. 18).
  15. ↵
    1. Jefferson T,
    2. Dooley L,
    3. Ferroni E,
    4. et al
    . Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023(1): CD006207.
    1. Soares-Weiser K
    . Statement on ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’ review. Cochrane. 2023 Mar 10. Available: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
    1. Tufekci Z
    . Here’s why the science is clear that masks work. New York Times. 2023 Mar 10. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  16. ↵
    1. Tran L
    . Don’t believe those who claim science proves masks don’t work. The Guardian. 2023 Feb 27. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/dont-believe-those-who-claim-science-proves-masks-dont-work (accessed 2023 Mar. 20).
  17. ↵
    1. Ferris M,
    2. Ferris R,
    3. Workman C,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy of FFP3 respirators for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. Elife 2021;10:e71131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Andrejko KL,
    2. Pry JM,
    3. Myers JF,
    4. et al.
    California COVID-19 Case-Control Study Team. Effectiveness of face mask or respirator use in indoor public settings for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection: California, February–December 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:212–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lawton T,
    2. Butler M,
    3. Peters C
    . Airborne protection for staff is associated with reduced hospital-acquired COVID-19 in English NHS trusts. J Hosp Infect 2022;120:81–4.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Cowger TL,
    2. Murray EJ,
    3. Clarke J,
    4. et al
    . Lifting universal masking in schools: COVID-19 incidence among students and staff. N Engl J Med 2022;387: 1935–46.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Talic S,
    2. Shah S,
    3. Wild H,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2021;375:e068302.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Bollyky TJ,
    2. Castro E,
    3. Aravkin AY,
    4. et al
    . Assessing COVID-19 pandemic policies and behaviours and their economic and educational trade-offs across US states from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022: an observational analysis. Lancet. 2023 Mar. 23 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00461-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    Study: Measuring the correlation between COVID-19 restrictions and economic activity. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; modified 2022 Mar. 28. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220328/dq220328d-eng.htm (accessed 2022 Oct. 18).
  24. ↵
    1. Irfan FB,
    2. Minetti R,
    3. Telford B,
    4. et al
    . Coronavirus pandemic in the Nordic countries: health policy and economy trade-off. J Glob Health 2022;12:05017.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Jaccard I
    . The trade-off between public health and the economy in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frankfurt (Germany): European Central Bank; 2022. Available: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2690~329b9b633a.en.pdf (accessed 2022 Oct. 18).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 195 (15)
CMAJ
Vol. 195, Issue 15
17 Apr 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COVID-19 lockdown revisionism
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
COVID-19 lockdown revisionism
Blake Murdoch, Timothy Caulfield
CMAJ Apr 2023, 195 (15) E552-E554; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.221543

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
COVID-19 lockdown revisionism
Blake Murdoch, Timothy Caulfield
CMAJ Apr 2023, 195 (15) E552-E554; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.221543
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • “Lockdowns”
    • Measuring the effects of public health measures
    • Addressing the impact of lockdown revisionism
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Two goodbyes
  • How health care teams can help people with bedbugs: a patient’s perspective
  • Easing pain
Show more Humanities

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Article Types
    • Medicine & Society
  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Health policy
    • Health services
    • Infectious diseases: COVID-19
    • Patient education
    • Public health
    • Social media in health care

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire