The spread of pandemics such as Covid-19 in recent years has pushed governments and institutions to take a series of drastic measures, including mandatory lockdowns, in order to contain the spread of the virus and protect public health. But are these measures truly effective?
Now four years after the explosion of the pandemic due to the so-called “Coronavirus” it’s time to take stock of the more or less effective management policies adopted to contain the damage from the spread of viruses.
The global spread of Covid 19 during 2020 has highlighted the complexity of the challenges that governments face in balancing the protection of public health with the maintenance of economic stability and social well-being.
And it is in this way that in recent times an increasingly heated debate has emerged on the effectiveness and costs of such drastic measures as those of mandatory lockdowns.
The Wall Street Journal article
What raises controversy on the topic again is a very recent publication appeared in the columns of US newspaper Wall Street Journal.
According to what is reported in this in-depth article, the health policy consultant Scott W. Atlas and the economist Steve H. Hanke they argue that mandatory lockdowns have not produced the desired results and have caused significant damage, both from an economic and health point of view.
The reference is to the White House campaign “15 days to slow the spread” adopted by the then Republican vice president of the United States Mike Pence, serving under the President’s administration Donald Trump from 2017 to 2021.
According to what was highlighted by two experts from the conservative/liberal wing (Atlas is a Senior Fellow in health policy at the Hoover Institution, Hanke is an economist inspired by the ideas of Friedrich Hayek and
Milton Friedman) the health benefits arising from mandatory lockdowns they would have been minimalwith estimates indicating a prevention of between 4,000 and 16,000 deaths for Covid in the United States.
Therefore, according to Atlas and of Hanke “the game wouldn’t be worth the candle“: this would in fact be an insignificant number compared to the thousands of deaths caused annually by other diseases such as influenza. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on average every year 37,000 Americans die from the flu.
Furthermore, the lockdowns have failed to reduce infections significantly because, according to the two experts, people voluntarily change their behavior when a harmful virus is in circulation.
In conclusion for Atlas and Hanke During Covid, officials allegedly adopted restrictive practices by intentionally stoking fear: a response that, on US soil, would therefore have caused enormous economic, social, educational and health damage in addition to that caused by the virus.
Do mandatory lockdowns really help manage pandemics?
Four years after the emergence of these new scenarios, it is a debate that continues to fuel controversy but which, certainly, is not easy to answer.
Below we try to draw a line between the various positions that emerge in this discussion complaints.
Supporters of restrictive measures
Supporters of lockdowns justify such measures as essential tools to slow the spread of the virus and protect human lives based on a number of basic arguments. First of all, they highlight the precautionary principle, according to which it is better to act preventively to avoid the worst possible, especially when it comes to a threat such as a highly contagious and potentially lethal virus such as Covid-19.
Furthermore, supporters of lockdowns appeal to historical experience and scientific data indicating that reducing mobility and interpersonal contact can actually help slow the spread of infectious diseases.
At the same time, supporters of lockdowns underline that restrictive measures can help “crash the curve” of infections, that is, reduce the number of new cases and avoid overloading the healthcare system. This is crucial to ensuring that healthcare facilities are able to provide adequate care to all those who need it, thus reducing the number of avoidable deaths.
Finally, supporters of lockdowns rely on the recommendations of international health authorities, such as theWorld Health Organization (WHO) ei Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who supported the adoption of restrictive measures as part of an overall approach to contain the pandemic. These institutions have provided guidance based on the best scientific practices available at the time and have worked with governments to develop effective pandemic response strategies.
Those against restrictive measures
While advocates of lockdowns justify such measures as essential tools to slow the spread of the virus and prevent healthcare system overload, critics raise doubts about their long-term consequences. One of the main concerns concerns the economic impact of lockdowns. The restrictions imposed on commercial activities and the movement of people have led to large-scale job losses and the bankruptcy of numerous businesses. This generated an unprecedented economic crisiswith consequences that will be felt for years to come.
It should also be added that during periods of mandatory lockdowns, the limitation of mobility has raised fundamental questions regarding vaccination programmes. The limitation of mobility imposed during the mandatory lockdowns has fueled fears among citizens, who have found themselves in a difficult situation having to make a choice between one’s safety and individual freedom. On the one hand, there was the need to protect oneself from the risk of contracting the virus by avoiding non-essential travel and the obligation to participate in vaccination programs. On the other hand, some individuals felt a sense of restriction of their personal freedoms, raising doubts about government measures and the effectiveness of vaccines, which in several cases have generated adverse effects and, consequently, fueled a generalized sense of mistrust in the community. And in fact, once the emergency period ended, people stopped vaccinating altogether.
Furthermore, lockdowns have had devastating effects on people’s mental health and social well-being. Social isolation, job loss and fear of the virus have contributed to an increase in cases of depression, anxiety and other psychological disorders. There school closures also had a negative impact on children and young people, depriving them of a in-depth scholastic training from the in-person teacher-student relationship and of social interactions crucial for development.
Another critical issue that emerged concerns the management of the pandemic by public health authorities. Although scientific evidence and lessons learned from previous pandemics recommended a more targeted and proportionate approach to containment measures, many authorities have opted for widespread and stringent restrictions. This has fueled confusion and disillusionment among the public, compromising trust in institutions and contributing to the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
The critical examination of long-term lockdowns
In conclusion, the critical examination of lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic raises crucial questions that deserve further consideration.
It is essential that governments think carefully about the costs and benefits of lockdowns and adopt more balanced and targeted strategies in managing future health emergencies. This requires a multidisciplinary approach that takes into account not only epidemiological considerations, but also the socio-economic implications of the measures adopted.
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the complexity of the challenges governments face in the balance the protection of public health with the maintenance of economic stability and social well-being. It is now more important than ever to learn from the lessons learned during this crisis and develop more flexible, adaptable and future-oriented response capabilities.
Ultimately, the goal must be to protect the health and well-being of all citizens, striking a balance between the need to mitigate the spread of the virus and respect individual rights and civil liberties. Only through global collaboration and informed and responsible leadership will it be possible to successfully address the health challenges that the future holds for us.
Source: article by lentepubblica.it editorial staff
