WHO Didn’t Recommend Lockdowns, Contrary to Health Officials’ Suggestions

As the U.S. formally exited from the World Health Organization past month, Trump medication officials misleadingly claimed that the WHO “pushed” oregon “promoted” lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The radical did not explicitly urge lockdowns, though it besides did not counsel countries not to instrumentality them. It said it recognized that the measures mightiness beryllium needed successful immoderate cases.

More than six years aft the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, national wellness officials are spinning the facts astir the WHO arsenic portion of their justification to permission the organization. The U.S. formally exited the WHO connected Jan. 22, a twelvemonth aft giving announcement to bash so, overmuch to the chagrin of galore successful nationalist health.

The WHO “ignored rigorous subject and promoted lockdowns,” Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jim O’Neill wrote on the time of the exit successful an X station that besides made claims astir Taiwan.

The aforesaid day, National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya likewise said successful an interview on Fox News that the WHO “absolutely failed during the pandemic … pushing, inactive to this time … lockdown policies that plagued Americans for years.”

Those comments led to contentious exchanges with WHO officials who person taken contented with the statements.

“All untrue,” Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious illness epidemiologist and the WHO’s method pb for COVID-19, responded to O’Neill successful a Jan. 24 post, adding, “we don’t disregard subject and WHO ne'er recommended lockdowns.”

The WHO besides pushed backmost successful a Jan. 24 statement, writing, “WHO recommended the usage of masks, vaccines and carnal distancing, but astatine nary signifier recommended disguise mandates, vaccine mandates oregon lockdowns. We supported sovereign governments to marque decisions they believed were successful the champion interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.”

The quality recalls a akin concern successful October 2020 erstwhile President Donald Trump, past successful his archetypal term, incorrectly said that the WHO had “just admitted” that helium was “right” astir lockdowns. Trump had criticized lockdowns, saying they were “worse than the occupation itself.” Trump was successful bureau astatine the tallness of the pandemic erstwhile COVID-19 restrictions successful the U.S. were the astir stringent.

As we wrote then, the WHO’s presumption connected lockdowns had ever been much nuanced — the radical neither recommended the measures nor advised against them, saying it recognized that lockdowns tin harm nine but are sometimes necessary.

The enactment did astatine times praise China’s assertive response, and supported countries successful their decisions, which could beryllium interpreted arsenic an implicit endorsement of the measures. But it’s an oversimplification to accidental that the WHO “pushed” oregon “promoted” lockdowns. We did not find grounds that the WHO explicitly recommended them, accordant with the organization’s statements.

We reached retired to the NIH to inquire astir Bhattacharya’s comments and to the CDC to inquire astir O’Neill’s, but did not person a reply. The WHO pointed america to a Q&A post — past updated Dec. 31, 2020 — that we besides antecedently referenced, which notes that alleged “lockdown” measures tin enactment to dilatory viral transmission but tin person “a profound antagonistic impact,” particularly for disadvantaged groups.

“WHO recognizes that astatine definite points, immoderate countries person had nary prime but to contented stay-at-home orders and different measures, to bargain time,” the station continues, adding that “WHO is hopeful that countries volition usage targeted interventions wherever and erstwhile needed, based connected the section situation.”

Similar connection besides appears successful an April 2020 WHO document, which states determination is an “urgent need” to modulation distant from lockdown measures, but besides cautions that premature lifting of restrictions without cautious readying is apt to pb to an uncontrolled surge successful COVID-19 cases.

It’s worthy noting that determination is no unified definition of what “lockdowns” are. While they mostly notation to what the WHO terms “large standard carnal distancing measures and question restrictions,” they varied greatly successful scope and severity successful antithetic countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. mentation — which astatine its astir restrictive progressive stay-at-home orders and schoolhouse and concern closures, implemented by states and section governments — was acold lighter than measures imposed successful China, for example.

In immoderate parts of China, residents astatine times could not permission their cities, were not allowed to usage their ain cars and needed support to permission their apartments. In the U.S., determination was ne'er a national lockdown, though the Trump medication issued guidelines that told radical to debar ample gatherings and encouraged schoolhouse and nonessential concern closures aboriginal successful the pandemic.

“My medication is recommending that each Americans, including the young and healthy, enactment to prosecute successful schooling from location erstwhile possible. Avoid gathering successful groups of much than 10 people. Avoid discretionary travel. And debar eating and drinking astatine bars, restaurants, and nationalist nutrient courts,” Trump said connected March 16, 2020, erstwhile announcing the government’s “15 Days to Slow the Spread,” which was aboriginal extended. On March 23, 2020, Trump said that “America volition again, and soon, beryllium unfastened for concern — precise soon.”

The connection “lockdown” has sometimes erroneously been applied to immoderate nationalist wellness measure, adjacent those that don’t bounds societal interactions.

Contentious Exchanges

In effect to Van Kerkhove’s station astir O’Neill, Bhattacharya pointed to immoderate substance of the WHO-China Joint Mission report in February 2020, and wrote, “That is conscionable plain false. The WHO ngo to China successful 2020 lauded the Chinese lockdown arsenic a success, successful effect endorsing the exemplary for the remainder of the world.”

The substance helium cited stated that the measures employed successful China — astatine their core, proactive surveillance, accelerated diagnosis and lawsuit isolation and tracking and quarantine of adjacent contacts — “are the lone measures that are presently proven to interrupt oregon minimize transmission” of the coronavirus. “Given the harm that tin beryllium caused by uncontrolled, community-level transmission of this virus, specified an attack is warranted to prevention lives and to summation the weeks and months needed for the investigating of therapeutics and vaccine development,” the study added.

Van Kerkhove, however, replied: “What you’re speechmaking present is that we acknowledged that governments had to instrumentality pugnacious decisions to support their populations, but lockdowns were ne'er recommended, nor were they a argumentation proposal by @WHO.” 

Finishing the exchange, Bhattacharya wrote: “What I’m not speechmaking present is simply a condemnation of lockdowns astatine a clip wherever governments worldwide were earnestly considering them. If you privation the satellite to spot the WHO, instrumentality honorable ownership of this failure.”

Bhattacharya has besides objected to statements from the WHO’s leader, Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who had responded to an X station from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying that the HHS connection “contains inaccurate information” and that the WHO “never recommended lockdowns.”

“That is conscionable profoundly dishonest,” Bhattacharya wrote in a Jan. 24 X post. “If the WHO opposed lockdowns, wherever was the WHO condemnation of them successful 2020 oregon 2021? Or of China’s lockdowns successful 2022?”

A time later, Bhattacharya posted a thread with what helium called “receipts” of grounds that the WHO is wrong, which included statements from the WHO astir what countries should ideally bash earlier lifting lockdown measures.

The disagreement betwixt U.S. and WHO officials partially comes down to semantics. Bhattacharya is close that the WHO ngo praised China’s effect — and that the radical did not travel retired against lockdowns. But Van Kerkhove and the WHO person not claimed to person done so. Moreover, not opposing lockdowns is antithetic from recommending them.

“WHO neither recommended nor categorically opposed lockdowns,” Van Kerkhove told america successful an email responding to questions astir the claims. “We recommended a broad risk-based attack including surveillance, interaction tracing, testing, quarantine (for those infected), isolation (for contacts), carnal distancing, the usage of masks/respirators, idiosyncratic protective instrumentality for wellness workers, improved ventilation, vaccines, therapeutics and more. At the aforesaid time, we acknowledged that successful immoderate circumstances, countries felt they had nary prime but to present lockdowns to forestall their wellness systems being overwhelmed resulting successful much lives lost. We respected that choice, arsenic it was their sovereign right, but we said that lockdowns should not beryllium utilized arsenic the superior oregon default strategy for controlling COVID-19, and highlighted their superior societal and economical consequences.”

“We did say, repeatedly and clearly, that lockdowns came with risks and imaginable harms, and that they were not a sustainable solution,” she added.

She pointed to multiple examples of the WHO expressing this presumption oregon informing astir the harms oregon imaginable harms of lockdown measures, including a speech the director-general gave successful April 2020 that reminded nations that “there is simply a request to respect quality rights and dignity” and that the “restrictive measures governments are implementing are already having a monolithic interaction connected livelihoods.”

“Lockdowns are a blunt instrumentality that person taken a dense toll successful galore countries,” the WHO director-general likewise said successful September 2020. “With the close premix of targeted and tailored measures, further nationalist lockdowns tin beryllium avoided.”

Van Kerkhove besides cited a Q&A video from the WHO that Van Kerkhove appeared successful and was shared connected societal media successful October 2020.

Bhattacharya cited the aforesaid video successful his X thread, saying, “A WHO epidemiologist lauds lockdowns arsenic a mode to ‘stop’ covid outbreaks.”

Van Kerkhove said that was a “deliberate misinterpretation of what was said.” In the clip, speaking for the WHO, she said, “we haven’t recommended” lockdowns, adding that “we bash admit that immoderate countries and immoderate areas person had to usage what is called alleged lockdown measures due to the fact that they needed to bargain themselves immoderate time.” 

“This clip cannot beryllium interpreted arsenic maine ‘lauding’ lockdowns,” she said.

Other individuals connected societal media have highlighted statements from February 2020 by Dr. Bruce Aylward, a Canadian doc and epidemiologist who was then a elder advisor to the WHO director-general, that Bhattacharya reshared on X.

During the property league for the WHO-China associated mission, Aylward emphasized that what China had done did look to beryllium working. “What China has demonstrated is, you person to bash this,” helium said astatine 1 point. “If you bash it, you tin prevention lives and forestall thousands of cases of what is simply a precise hard disease.” 

Van Kerkhove said this was besides a lawsuit of misinterpretation. “Dr Aylward spoke positively astir China’s wide effect to COVID-19, and recognized that different countries including Italy were present taking ‘extremely assertive actions,’” she told america successful an email. “Dr Aylward’s remark that ‘you person to bash this’ was a notation to the wide ‘aggressive’ oregon ‘rigorous’ attack that was needed to halt transmission and prevention lives, not specifically to the relation of lockdowns.”

Aylward “did not urge that countries enforce lockdowns,” she added, pointing to earlier comments of his that day, successful which helium said “it’s important that different countries deliberation about” applying “not needfully the afloat lockdowns … but that aforesaid rigorous approach.”

Lawrence Gostin, a planetary wellness instrumentality prof astatine Georgetown University, told america that it is “certainly existent that WHO officials praised China’s COVID-19 [response], and that was irresponsible.”

But, helium added, “we hide however frightening the aboriginal days of the COVID-19 pandemic were. We had nary vaccines oregon treatments and the microorganism was spreading exponentially. In that context, a impermanent lockdown was intelligibly justified to bargain clip for the improvement and deployment of vaccines. Lockdowns were besides intended to support overwhelmed hospitals and wellness workers. It is casual to blasted WHO for its proactive effect successful the midst of a planetary crisis. But it’s wrong.”

He said Bhattacharya’s posts “lack immoderate subtlety oregon context” and emphasized that the WHO “has nary powerfulness to bid lockdowns & it ne'er did.”

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not judge advertising. We trust connected grants and idiosyncratic donations from radical similar you. Please see a donation. Credit paper donations whitethorn beryllium made through our “Donate” page. If you similar to springiness by check, nonstop to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The station WHO Didn’t Recommend Lockdowns, Contrary to Health Officials’ Suggestions appeared archetypal connected FactCheck.org.