Were COVID-19 lockdowns worth it? A meta-analysis

B-Tier
Journal: Public Choice
Year: 2025
Volume: 203
Issue: 3
Pages: 337-367

Authors (3)

Jonas Herby (not in RePEc) Lars Jonung (Lunds Universitet) Steve H. Hanke (not in RePEc)

Score contribution per author:

0.670 = (α=2.01 / 3 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

Abstract Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented use of mandatory lockdowns—defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention—took place. We conduct a meta-analysis to determine the effect of these lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality. Our meta-analysis finds that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a relatively small effect on COVID-19 mortality and is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behavior, such as social distancing, played an important role in mitigating the pandemic. Given the enormous economic costs associated with lockdowns and our findings of the relatively small health benefits, the efficacy of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic is called into question.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01216-7
Journal Field
Public
Author Count
3
Added to Database
2026-01-25