IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v203y2025i3d10.1007_s11127-024-01216-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jonas Herby
  • Lars Jonung

    (Lund University)

  • Steve H. Hanke

    (The Johns Hopkins University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonas Herby & Lars Jonung & Steve H. Hanke, 2025. "Were COVID-19 lockdowns worth it? A meta-analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(3), pages 337-367, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01216-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01216-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-024-01216-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-024-01216-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; Restrictions; Lockdown; Non-pharmaceutical interventions; Mortality; Meta-analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • D19 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01216-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.