Definitive Proof: COVID-19 Lockdowns Didn’t Work

by in COVID, Science · 20 Comments
Facebook
Follow by Email
RSS
Twitter
Tweet

By Michael J. Talmo December 8, 2025

Published in State of the Nation, Transcend Media Service, and The Trends Journal, Pages 139-140

An October 30, 2025, study on COVID-19 lockdowns and school closures was published in Health Affairs Scholar. It’s a sister publication of Health Affairs of Oxford University, which is one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world and is referred to as the “bible of health policy.”

The title of the study is “The unintended health effects of US COVID-19 lockdowns: a systematic review.” It found that the lockdowns “had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.” It also documented the severe damage that the lockdowns did to people’s physical and mental health. However, as stated in the title, this wasn’t just a single study. It was a systematic review, which is a painstaking, thorough analysis of all the peer-reviewed literature on a particular topic. It then selects the best studies and synthesizes them into a single study. A systematic review is considered the gold standard in science, the highest level of evidence, because it eliminates bias and looks at the big picture.

The research team reported that their study was “the first to systematically qualify the health impacts of lockdowns and school closures in the United States.” They found that the lockdowns were implemented based on “very low quality” evidence regarding their effectiveness and “that the true infection risk was far lower than early, often unreliable simulation models suggested” (note 59 at the end of this quote references Neil Ferguson’s inaccurate COVID-19 computer modeling). Inaccuracy and flagrant error are standard fare for all computer modeling, as explained here and especially here.

The research team concluded that lockdowns and school closures in the US “contributed to significant adverse health effects” and were “consistent with studies conducted outside the United States.” All of these studies documented increases in anxiety, depression, obesity, food insecurity, unemployment, and overall economic instability. They also emphasized that such measures “may have inadvertently violated the foundational principles of public health ethics that emphasize justice, equity, and protection of vulnerable populations.” The research team also called for reflection on what level of infectious disease justifies restricting “access to education and the right to work, which are considered inalienable human rights directly linked to health and well-being.”

The entire study can be read here.

20 thoughts on “Definitive Proof: COVID-19 Lockdowns Didn’t Work”

  1. Greg Trask

    - Edit

    Reply

    Mike,
    This sounds like Trump’s economic policies creating depression, inadvertent lock downs due to lack of funds and rampant (rogue) ICE agents arresting at will to collect bounties, anxiety and overall health hazards.
    Trump has locked down the country with his ill begotten tariffs.

    1. Michael Talmo

      - Edit

      Reply

      You are engaging in a false assumption fallacy, Eli. This occurs whenever the truth of a premise depends on some necessary condition which is merely stipulated or assumed to be present when it is not in fact present at all. I’m reporting on what the scientific literature says on a particular topic. In this case, the COVID-19 lockdowns.The peer-reviewed scientific study I’m citing is a systematic review, which is designed to eliminate the kind of confirmation bias you seem to be accusing me of. As stated in my article, it’s the gold standard in science, the highest level of evidence. Instead of laughing your ass off, I suggest you sit your ass down and read my article, open the hyperlinks to see that what I’m saying is valid, and read the study before you jump to illogical conclusions.

Add Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.