in World News

Stanford study: Lockdowns have no significant effect in reducing COVID-19, may even spread it

Michael Haynes By Michael Haynes  Follow

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

STANFORD, California, January 14, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A new study compiled by experts from Stanford University, has found that severe lockdown restrictions, such as stay at home orders and closure of businesses, have no “clear, significant benefits” in preventing the spread of COVID-19, and may in fact increase infection rates.

National or state-wide lockdowns have been the ‘go to’ tactic by governments since the emergence of COVID-19, yet new research reveals that such drastic and draconian measures are, at best, not effective.

Entitled, “Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects upon the spread of COVID-19,” the paper was released on January 5 this year, by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Professor John Ioannidis, along with Christopher Oh and Dr. Jay Battacharya, one of the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. All four are based in various departments in Stanford University, including the Department of Medicine, the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, and the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health.

The authors studied the effect of “non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)”, discerning between “more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs),” and “less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).”

Lockdowns, stay at home orders, and business closures, were all designated as “some of the most restrictive NPI policies,” in the paper.

No evidence of lockdown efficacy ‘in any country’

Based upon results drawn from countries where very restrictive NPIs were used, compared to countries with only light restrictions, the study found “no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country.”

As to whether the spring lockdowns of 2020, i.e. mrNPIs, brought infection rates down, the study wrote: “there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.” The authors admitted that whilst “modest decreases in daily growth” could not be “excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to mrNPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.”

Those eight countries which employed restrictive NPI’s (USA, England, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, Netherlands, Spain), were each compared to the less restricted countries of Sweden and South Korea, and the authors noted that “[u]nder no comparison is there evidence of reduction in case growth rates from mrNPIs, in any country.”


full story at

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,