Without implementing strategies like lockdowns to reduce the spread of the “novel” coronavirus, there would have been 7 billion infections and 40 million deaths in 2020 alone, according to researchers at the Imperial College of London.
These predictions were massively wrong, as demonstrated by Sweden, which didn’t lock down their population. By July of 2020, they showed a massive decline in new COVID-19 cases. They didn’t close their restaurants, bars, libraries, public swimming pools, and kept most schools open. They encouraged social distancing and the schools had limits on capacity. They did not require masks. According to modelers from the Gates-funded Imperial College of London, if severe restrictions weren’t observed, 100,000 people would die in Sweden’s intensive care units by July 2020. Instead, Sweden’s death toll by that time was 5,700, which was 90,000 short of the prediction.
Further, large-scale experiments in public health in the United States in the spring of 2020 proved further that lockdowns actually increased case numbers, and opening states actually decreased case numbers. Data was gathered first from early 2020 through mid-April, during the complete lockdown. The results, analyzed by TrendMacro, showed a positive relationship to lockdown and the virus spreading, which is just the opposite of what was hoped would happen. The stricter the lockdowns, the larger the outbreaks, and this held true even in states with the greatest number of cases.
The second body of data was gathered during the reopening of the economy from mid-April through July 2020. Contrary to what was expected, the states which were the most open showed the lightest number of cases.
This trend was confirmed in an article in Lancet dated August 1, 2020. A study of 50 countries showed that full lockdown was not associated with reduced critical cases or overall deaths. The longer time it took to implement the lockdown, the lower number of cases there were.