Experts who challenged lockdowns were silenced, but the data proves them right
It is true that misinformation was a serious issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. What is false is the insistence that it primarily came from voices contrarian to the narratives of public health authorities. Time and scrutiny have shown how misguided those authorities were, yet we have seen little reckoning from them.
In April 2023, researcher Blake Murdoch and law professor Timothy Caulfield published COVID-19 Lockdown Revisionism in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, arguing that terms like “lockdown” were distorted in the “infodemic.” They claimed misinformation about public health measures damaged trust despite these measures “largely achieving their goals.”
Four Canadian doctors—Ari R. Joffe, Pooya Kazemi, Roy Eappen, and Chris Milburn—disagree. In Claims of COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’ Are Themselves Misinformed, they argue that terms like “revisionism” and “misinformation” are used to dismiss evidence-based critiques rather than engaging with the data.
They cite Johns Hopkins University metastudies showing lockdowns in Europe and the U.S. reduced COVID-19 mortality by just 3.2 per cent. Using WHO data, they calculate that lockdowns prevented only 0.1 per cent of global deaths, raising questions about their effectiveness versus their costs.
Murdoch and Caulfield dismissed the Great Barrington Declaration—which advocated for focused protection of vulnerable populations—as “scientifically discredited.” They further claimed it was neither possible nor ethical to isolate at-risk groups.
The doctors counter this, citing stark differences in the infection fatality rate (IFR). For those under 70, the original strain had a median IFR of 0.095 per cent, with the highest risk among older individuals. For those over 70, IFR was 2.2 per cent—dramatically higher.
“We find it odd to argue that isolating older people was unethical while isolating the entire population was ethical,” the doctors wrote. “Focused protection could have been voluntary and without ‘segregation.’”
Murdoch and Caulfield acknowledged that “not every measure was implemented ideally.” The doctors agree but challenge the assumption that all measures were justified.
They argue that pandemic discourse unfairly scapegoated the unvaccinated, dismissed herd immunity, and overstated vaccination benefits. For example, vaccine mandates for colleges and care homes had no measurable impact on resident mortality, while risks like myocarditis increased.
Even now, they say, the push for boosters is problematic. Data suggest the efficacy of a fourth dose “became negative over time” compared to those who received only three.
“It is very likely that almost the entire global population has been infected,” the doctors wrote. “The IFR has declined, and natural immunity remains strong.”
Murdoch and Caulfield claim “high-quality masks can reduce pathogen spread,” citing a CDC study. The doctors, however, found flaws in these studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) never showed significant differences in community transmission.
“Community masking was known from pre-pandemic meta-analyses of RCTs—and reaffirmed during the pandemic—not to significantly affect respiratory virus transmission,” they wrote.
A 2023 study in the Archives of Disease in Childhood concluded that “scientific data does not support masking children for COVID-19 protection.”
Murdoch and Caulfield warn against normalizing “inaccurate historical accounts of public health responses.” The doctors agree—but argue that authorities themselves are guilty of this.
“We believe pandemic responses lacked adequate cost-benefit analysis, and compliance with such measures in the future is not warranted,” they wrote. Trust must be “re-earned.”
Those who make a weak case should not be surprised when the public remains unconvinced. Both health authorities and citizens must take a deeper look—and wake up.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
