Response to critique of: ‘Understanding the impact of lockdowns on short-term excess mortality in Australia’ by Gigi Foster and Sanjeev Sabhlok

Journal article

Our paper1 studies the impact of lockdowns in Australia on short-term mortality. Our study finds that, compared with the period 2015–2019, the standardised mortality rate in 2020–2021 fell by 5.9%. This finding is contrary to some (such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration) who had predicted that lockdowns policies would have devastating short-term effects.2 Our study goes on to analyse the reduction in Australian mortality rates by cause of death and finds declines across both communicable and non-communicable causes of death, including respiratory diseases, cancer and heart disease. We observe a reduction in mortality for both men and women. Analysing Google mobility data, we find that the drop in deaths tracked reductions in movement outside the home. Our paper then: Given the straightforward nature of our analysis and the careful caveats that accompany it, we are surprised by Foster and Sabhlok’s (hereafter FS) fervent critique.3 After carefully reviewing each of the points they raise, we conclude that little of its content relates to our paper. Their so-called critique is a polemic on lockdowns rather than a scientific contribution. In the interest of completeness, we provide brief responses to each of the major points they raise: #### Summary Box.

Authors: Clarke, P; Leigh, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Journal: BMJ Global Health
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 8
• Pages: e013595-e013595
• Publication date: 2023-08-29
• Acceptance date: 2023-08-14
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013595
• EISSN: 2059-7908
• ISSN: 2059-7908
• Language: English
• Keywords: Geography; Demographic economics; Law; Development economics; Political science; Fell; Medicine; Mortality rate; Sociology; Economics; Declaration; Excess mortality; Demography