ENTERTAINMENT

Coronavirus: Lockdowns do NOT lower mortality, a study says


According to scientists, bans had little impact on coronavirus mortality rates around the world, and nation health was more important before.

Dozens of countries have been forced to tell people to stay home and do business to stop the Covid-19 pandemic since its outbreak in January.

But now a study has claimed that the drastic measures don't even work. They found that the question of whether a country was blocked or not is not related to the mortality rate.

The level of obesity and the amount of money people had were two of the most influential factors in a country's mortality rate, the study said.

High levels of obesity, with over 30 percent of overweight adults, was associated with a 12 percent increase in deaths per million people.

The average age of people also had a significant impact on the mortality rate. Countries with an average age of 40 years or more – that is, half of the population is older and half of the population is younger – had significantly more deaths.

A graphic in the newspaper showed that countries with an average age of over 40 years suffered more than 150 Covid-19 deaths per million people, compared to less than 25 per million in countries with an average below 30.

And a lower average income increased the mortality rate by three percent per million. This was measured on a median income of $ 23,122 (£ 18,173).

The data could explain why countries like the UK – with one of the worst obesity rates in Europe and Italy with a high average age – had so many fatalities despite strict regulations.

The premature closure of international borders seemed to reduce the number of cases, but did not save real life.

However, the number of nurses has saved lives, and there have been significantly fewer deaths in countries with more than 6,000 nurses per million people than in countries with half as many.

Average age had a major impact on deaths, and those with older populations – with an average age of over 40 years – had more than three times the mortality rate of countries with younger averages

According to scientists, blockages have had little impact on coronavirus mortality rates around the world. In the picture a closed shop in Great Britain

According to scientists, blockages have had little impact on coronavirus mortality rates around the world. In the picture a closed shop in Great Britain

The study showed that countries with more nurses per person had significantly fewer coronavirus deaths, and the opposite was the case

The study showed that countries with more nurses per person had significantly fewer coronavirus deaths, and the opposite was the case

The study compared mortality rates and cases in 50 different countries most affected by the pandemic by May 1.

Experts from the University of Toronto and the University of Texas calculated that among these most affected countries, only 33 out of a million people were killed by the virus.

However, this rate has increased significantly since then and is now at 80 per million worldwide and is still increasing. Britain has seen 670 deaths per million.

The researchers created a mathematical model to measure the impact of each country's response to coronavirus cases and deaths.

They then compared this to demographic factors such as age, smoking and obesity.

Dr. Sheila Riazi and colleagues found that lockdown measures have prevented the health systems from being overwhelmed by an increase in patients.

This was the main goal of the British government when it imposed restrictions back in March – protecting the NHS and ultimately saving lives.

WHAT DO OTHER STUDIES SAY ABOUT LOCKDOWN SUCCESS?

Another study by the University of East Anglia suggested that draconian orders to stay at home and close all nonessential businesses had little effect on coronavirus control in Europe.

However, the same scientists discovered that the closure of schools and the ban on all mass gatherings have helped slow outbreaks across the continent.

Other leading scientists have claimed that the UK's COVID 19 outbreak peaked and declined before the official blockade began, arguing that Number 10's drastic policy to shut down the UK was wrong.

However, some studies directly contradict the theory that locking was pointless.

A scientific paper from Imperial University in London published in June found that Lockdown probably saved nearly half a million lives in Britain alone.

Coronavirus locks across Europe have likely prevented up to three million Covid-related deaths, the team led by Professor Neil Ferguson found.

Great Britain, Germany, Spain, France and Italy have evaded up to 500,000 coronavirus or more deaths due to their draconian policies, the team estimated.

A separate study, also published in June, found that around 500 million Covid-19 cases were prevented by bans in six countries, including the United States.

A study from 149 countries found that previous blocking restrictions reduced the number of Covid 19 cases.

The researchers measured how the number of Covid-19 cases changed over the course of the pandemic and whether they dropped in the days following strict rules.

Physical distancing measures such as the closure of schools, workplaces and public transport, a ban on mass meetings and complete closures have led to a greater reduction in cases where they were implemented earlier than late – 14 percent versus 10 percent.

It took the countries an average of nine days to recommend social distancing once the first case was discovered there. But some countries took much longer.

The UK was one of the slowest countries to introduce life-saving barriers alongside Thailand, Australia and Canada.

From the first reported case on January 31, it took 45 days for Prime Minister Boris Johnson to discuss social distancing on March 16. The full blockage did not take place until March 23 for another week.

As a result, cases shrank 17 percent, which was above average but low compared to fast-responding Andorra, where cases fell 36 percent.

Although this increased the likelihood that someone with Covid would recover from the virus, it did not result in a significant reduction in mortality rates.

Movement restrictions and border closures also had no significant impact on Covid-19's deaths, even if early border closings appeared to significantly lower the cases and reduce the peak transmission, preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed.

Countries with widespread mass tests appeared to have no less critical cases or deaths per million, the study said.

“Government measures such as border closings, complete closures and a high rate of COVID-19 testing did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.

& # 39; The number of days to close a border was linked to the number of cases per million.

"This suggests that complete closures and early border closings may reduce the peak transmission and thus prevent overcapacity in the healthcare system, which would lead to higher recovery rates."

However, the scientists found no evidence that this actually saved lives.

The researchers found that population demography and underlying health – especially obesity rates – determined which countries were most affected by the virus.

Nations with above-average obesity rates were 12 percent more likely to have significantly higher mortality rates than those without.

It is relevant to Britain – which has one of the biggest obesity problems in Europe – with two thirds of adults and one third of overweight children.

The authors wrote: "Consistent with the reported COVID-19 result data from Europe, the United States and China, higher case numbers and all-cause mortality were associated with comorbidities such as obesity."

Countries with a higher average age of the population were 10 percent more likely to have a large number of cases.

A surprising finding was that nations with higher smoking rates had fewer deaths.

The emerging argument that tobacco use could protect against coronavirus is reinforced. A number of studies have shown that hospital patients have a bizarrely low smoking rate.

However, the researchers warned that the results may only be due to the fact that countries with a high smoking prevalence tend to be those with younger populations.

Young people are less likely to develop the corona virus, which is why countries with a younger population are less affected by the pandemic.

The team also found that wealthier nations were worse off, probably because international travel meant that more cases were imported at the start of the crisis.

In their view, this is due to the “accessibility to air travel and international holidays”, since “travel has been identified as an important factor for the international spread of viruses”.

The team, which wrote in Lancet's online journal EClinicalMedicine, said: “Government measures such as border closings, complete closures and a high rate of Covid-19 testing did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the number of critical cases or overall mortality . & # 39;

However, some experts are skeptical of the results, suggesting that the results are exaggerated.

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University said: "A large number of possible predictors are included in a model with only 50 observations, and then the resulting formulas are over-interpreted."

Dr. Louise Dyson of the University of Warwick said: “Although population demographics such as average age and prevalence of obesity have been linked to increased mortality, this should not be interpreted as more important than government intervention such as barring. & # 39;

Given the growing concern, the complete shutdown of the British movement will have devastating consequences.

The resulting economic effects are likely to lead to physical and mental health problems in the short and long term.

Professor Mark Woolhouse, an infectious disease expert at Edinburgh University and a member of the UK's Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, warned earlier this month: “When the billing comes, we may find that the cure was far worse than the disease. & # 39;

However, other British scientists firmly believed that the ban was necessary and so important that it should have been enforced weeks before March 23.

Professor Neil Ferguson – the academic whose work led to the blockade of the UK – says that the blockade has probably saved nearly half a million lives in Britain alone.

His team at Imperial University in London found that coronavirus bans across Europe were likely to prevent up to three million deaths related to Covid.

Professor Lockdown has also admitted that tens of thousands of lives could be saved afterwards if the lock had occurred a week earlier.

A separate study, also published in June, found that around 500 million Covid-19 cases were prevented by bans in six countries, including the United States.

SCIENTISTS FOUND IN EUROPE'S LOCKDOWNS HAVE "SMALL EFFECTS" ON THE GEARBOX

A study published in May found that draconian orders to stay at home and close all non-essential businesses had little impact on the fight against coronavirus in Europe.

However, the same scientists discovered that the closure of schools and the ban on all mass gatherings have helped slow outbreaks across the continent.

University of East Anglia researchers said that relaxing the home stay policy and reopening some businesses could have happened earlier without jeopardizing public health.

The results questioned whether the full blockade announced by Britain on March 23 was ever necessary, as the social detachment measures announced on March 16 slowed the crisis alone.

Other leading scientists have claimed that the British COVID 19 outbreak peaked and declined before the official blockade began, arguing that the number 10 drastic policy to shut down Britain was wrong.

Transport usage decreased and fewer people visited general practitioners with telltale coronavirus symptoms the week before the ban. This indicated that the government's request to the public to work from home whenever possible and only make essential trips was effective enough.

UEA researchers examined a number of social distancing measures that were taken in 30 European countries.

They warned that the study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health Protection Research for Emergency Preparedness and Response at King & # 39; s College London and Public Health England, was experimental.

Banning mass meetings and closing schools and some non-essential businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, were the most effective ways to stop the disease from spreading, researchers said.

One of the scientists involved in the research, Dr. Julii Brainard said they found clear differences between the more effective measures.

"We found that three of the control measures were particularly effective and the other two were not," she told BBC Radio 4 this morning.

“It pains me to say that because I have children that I would like to get back into training, but school closure was the most effective one-off, followed by mass meetings.

& # 39; (This was) followed by what was defined … as the initial closings. That was the point at which gyms and clubs in Great Britain, for example, were closed.

"The measure of staying at home and the additional closings surprisingly added very little additional effect."

The investigation added Dr. Johan Giesecke from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm added that a complete ban is not necessary because the virus is unstoppable.

While admitting the benefit of not overwhelming hospitals, the British government has said that this has been its goal all along.

(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) messages (t) coronavirus