365 days of lockdown: What have we achieved and was it necessary?

Controversial calls to end lockdowns around the world due to doubts surrounding their efficacy cannot yet be proven scientifically.

But neither can anyone be certain that no lockdown would have made the world a safer place during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

This is the existential crisis facing South Africa as the country remembers its level 5 lockdown that began on 26 March. 

Exactly one year ago, the country went into hibernation in an effort to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 

But exactly how effective one year of varying lockdown levels has been in South Africa and globally is still questioned. 

ALSO READ: Liquor traders urge no ban on booze sales for Easter holidays

Naysayers and lockdown

Organisations such as Pandemics Data and Analytics (Panda) have been vocal in their call to “replace bad science with good science” and in December 2020 released a “protocol for reopening society”. 

Panda coordinator Nick Hudson said studies have shown that “lockdowns have done absolutely nothing to keep death rates low”.

“On the contrary, strong signs are the most restrictive measures were pro-contagion.”

He said although lockdowns had not necessarily caused higher death rates, lockdowns did not contribute to lower deaths to Covid-19, either.

However, there are significant time lags between imposing varying lockdown levels, which inhibits science from confirming if lockdowns do more harm than good, said head of economics at the University of Pretoria Professor Steven Koch. 

“The biggest problem in trying to determine the effect of lockdowns on cases and death rates is that lockdowns are typically responsive. Thus, ‘harder’ lockdowns are imposed when things get worse and vice versa.”

In his opinion, lockdowns did make a difference, but it was “certainly not obvious by how much”. 

He said some research suggested prompt border closures as an effective measure to keep caseloads low, but more important factors that contribute to overall infection and death rates include obesity, population age and higher income inequality.

“South Africa fares poorly on two of those, but well on age.”

University of the Free State poverty inequality and economic development vice-chancellor Professor Philippe Burger said in general, lockdowns did contribute to lower death rates, but “not all lockdowns have the same level of success”.

“In South Africa, the second wave peaked and Covid infections started to decrease not long after level 3 measures resumed. That indicates success.” 

Burger said it depended on the type of lockdown measures imposed, the most effective of which are regulations to prevent mass gatherings and super-spreader events.

Economics of lockdown

Koch said there is a possibility South Africa may have been in “slightly better shape” economically if the country had not locked down as it did, but not much. 

This is especially because the country’s economy is dependent on visitors and international trade, both of which ceased. 

“I still think people would have remained cautious about spending time in enclosed areas, for example, which has been so detrimental to much of the hospitality sector.” 

Lockdown did, however, bring about “silly” regulations such as the ban on open-toed shoes and T-shirt sales, which Burger said caused economic damage. 

ALSO READ: Booze ban lifted, but recovery is a long way off for the industry

Burger is also not convinced that prohibiting tobacco sales made a difference. 

Even alcohol bans, meant to reduce pressure on the country’s healthcare sector, had little effect over the festive season.

Hudson said countries that opted not to lock down, such as Sweden, South Korea, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan had “much the same outcomes” in terms of Covid-19, but “much smaller impacts on their economies and the social fabric of their societies”.

“This will translate into lower deaths for years to come, while lockdown countries will suffer long-term deaths that will dwarf the Covid-19 numbers.”

He said lockdowns were excluded from pre-Covid pandemic respiratory virus guidelines for this reason. 

“In a moment of panic and facing very bad advice from the WHO’s [World Health Organisation] Bruce Aylward, country after country tore up those guidelines…”

Hudson branded lockdown the “worst public health move in history”, with “enormous” debt burdens transferring wealth away from younger generations, “who will suffer from this for decades in ways [which] will be visible in mortality”. 

“Lockdown was always a highly regressive policy.” 

Individuals vs lockdown

In Koch’s opinion, countries that opted not to lock down were successful due to their “underlying social structure”, with citizens following rules, which lessened the impact of Covid-19. 

Burger said countries opting for softer lockdown measures often experienced very high infection rates, such as in the US. 

In Brazil, with President Jair Bolsonaro choosing not to impose any lockdown, Covid-19 deaths continue to surge. 

ALSO READ: This is what it is like to own a liquor store during the alcohol ban

Sweden fared better than countries such as the UK, but Burger attributed this to their government relying on individuals to “take measures to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19”, which worked “to some extent”. 

Burger said South Africa failing to prevent mass gatherings from taking place has lessened the efficacy of lockdown measures. 

“What is important here is to limit the number of people interacting socially.”

Hudson said if South Africa had chosen not to go into lockdown, it would have had “a very high level of iatrogenic deaths”, or deaths resulting from public health and medical practice. 

“Some of these would have been Covid-19 deaths and other deaths from denial of service or inappropriate attention stemming from ‘Covid tunnel vision’. 

“Without lockdown, the economic impact would have been much, much smaller,” he said.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.