My stab at your query after 35 years of hospital practice: 1) Restricting visitors would increase mortality substantially because the most powerful brake on medical malpractice is the threat of lawsuits by family members against doctors and hospitals who treated the deceased. The visitor is the patient's most crucial witness and advocate in the course of any hospital episode. 2) Masks might marginally worsen mortality because they (like flu shots) have no effect on nosocomial viral transmission. They are a physical encumbrance, a distracting and time consuming ritual, and an impediment to communication between all participants in patient care. 3)Authorizing physician trainees to function without senior supervision would clearly kill many patients. Seasoned attendings while not infallible are certainly more experienced and skilled, and are more conscious of the professional liability risks inherent in their responsible position. 4) Double the case load = double the fatigue, stress, inattention and mistakes. It's beyond obvious to me that lockdown killed many people, especially in acute and chronic care facility settings.

Expand full comment
Jan 3Liked by Jessica Hockett

Mortality would go up. Skewing the inpt population to older-sicker, inexperienced decision makers=more errors, and disallowing pt advocates(visitors)=more errors.

Expand full comment
Jan 3Liked by Jessica Hockett

In the second scenario, the huge increase of patients incoming from nursing homes would be enough to significantly increase hospital mortality. Many people would be dying, not at the home or in a hospice, but at a hospital.

Also, I have to think that disallowing visitors means patients die faster, rather than lingering in a twilight state for potentially weeks.

Expand full comment
Jan 3·edited Jan 3Liked by Jessica Hockett

People needing available treatments potentially not receiving them because they're isolated with zero advocates speaking on their behalf. DPA ventilators 1 wrench to cure them all... oops.

Influenza did not disappear. We were experiencing one of the worst flu seasons heading into the "pandemic."

sidenote: "The decision to reconstruct the deadliest pandemic flu virus of the 20th century was made with considerable care and attention to safety." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-1918-virus.html

..is it possible something we resurrected/created/spliced together got loose somehow and they're cleaning it up running cover in other "novel" ways? I have no idea, i know what they're telling us is bullshit.

Expand full comment
Jan 3Liked by Jessica Hockett

Would likely:

increase % of very sick people in hospitals. Increase stress on said people and workers.

Decrease medical staff able / willing to work.

Likely some additional care mistakes but consequences may be limited due to short duration.

Decrease non emergency procedures / fewer "less" sick people.

Fewer people there from accidents.

At 2 weeks likely not have too many that pushed off going to hospital when they should have.

In patient mortality % would go up but raw numbers go down. The longer the duration, the worse it would get due to societal unrest and shutdown of support mechanisms.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Jessica Hockett

I’ll add a funky twist to your scenario and up the theory of question.

Let’s say all virus never existed, only bacteria that pollutes one’s immune system so the need of antibiotics remains the same for population. But for whatever weird reason in 2018-19 it goes up but we won’t get into that. But let’s add all your new protocols and let’s add completely withholding OTHER medical interventions that’s extremely easy to tackle when applying right but extremely deadly if not. Let’s add withholding ABT for this new protocol and let admit this is a real bummer now because for whatever reason there’s an increase bacteria infection cases, much more than previous years. What do you think the end results would be when all that’s added?

Expand full comment
Jan 10Liked by Jessica Hockett

Interesting post thanks, I work in the medical field, I think we are seeing this again, with the shotz, from anecdotal evidence, 'carers' feel betrayed for following the narrative, they’re afraid for their careers and also are scared to death that their bodies are ticking time bombs. It’s easier to ignore than to acknowledge. Morale is VERY low, how does this effect the standard of care?

Expand full comment
Jan 3Liked by Jessica Hockett

Surely there is an example somewhere from history where scenario 1 happened. Like WWII London or Berlin prepping for air raids or Shanghai 2022 during full lockdowns. Or Israel during 6 Day War. Or American South during Civil War (New Orleans? Atlanta?).

Expand full comment

Echoes of the point I made here:


Expand full comment

As I argued in an early Medium post (before being de-platformed with like 9 readers for writing a personal account of my decision not to inject unproven, and unneeded, medical tech into my body) - all now available on Substack - 2 weeks to slow the spread, if implemented by competent people with the goal of knowledge accumulation, was not unreasonable.

Now, I argued against it from the drop because it was never about knowledge and these aren't competent people, but if you wanted 2 weeks to do a ton of sample testing, understand actual infection spread (antibody tests) and true IFR, define risk profiles, assess corresponding risks (age, co-morbidities, etc...) in order to provide the best guidance possible (GUIDANCE ONLY), I could listen to a rational argument. you can't close churches but ensure liquor and cigarette sales continue, but if you wanted to close schools and reduce hospital load and ask people not to travel or congregate unless absolutely necessary while the testing was completed, I could have heard you out. And it's very likely all-cause mortality wouldn't have changed at all. Humans can handle two weeks of pretty much anything, as long as it's communicated rationally and approached rationally.

The harm done by our "two weeks" (now more than 1,000 days) was that it was implemented specifically with panic, and panic, in any and all forms, will always increase all-cause mortality because, with a population north of 330M, there will always be literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people a strong breeze away from death. That's just the cold hard reality of the situation. So I don't think the thought experiment can stop at what was implemented, it's the how that matters more than anything when you're talking about such a small and finite window. At least, that's my take on the situation...

Expand full comment

We have something of a natural experiment in this regard in the US in 2020, when there were no vaccines administered, at least 42% of excess deaths were *not* due to Covid. Please see my article at Brownstone Institute at


for background.

In short, the damage is massive. And that's only the "instantaneous" effect. Tr.auma causes long-lasting problems.

To your problem using the numbers in my article for a SWAG: the 2020 lockdown deaths at ~200k were 0.000606061 of a US population of ~330m in 2020. Dividing this by 12 to get a monthly population rate gives 0.000050505 or 0.0050505% which would produce 404 deaths in a city of 8 million. Using US average deaths per 1m per year and dividing by 12 (10270/12*8 = 6847) yields an excess count of 404/6847 = 5.9%. Again, this is only the "instantaneous" effect.

For comparison, NYC say 433 homicides in 2022. So the estimate is in the range of numbers of concern, even though a small percentage of the population.

Expand full comment

We have real world evidence of this. Look at Hawaii (lowest excess in the USA, one of strictest lockdowns) or New Zealand (NEGATIVE excess in 2020 when under one of the strictest lockdowns in the world. At one point you could be arrested for returning a ball that fell into your yard from the neighbor. Their mortality went DOWN during this year.)

Lockdowns alone don't cause mortality (they actually would decrease it in most scenarios.) You need something else to create excess deaths. Like...a raging pandemic maybe?

Expand full comment

I’m actually confused about the scenarios. If there is no pathogen to restrict caregivers from coming in and caring for the vulnerable, that component of all cause mortality would not change. Also increasing the influx from nursing homes without a cause seems strange? Either way they come in as needed no? I could take your allowing resident doctors to make decisions as a counter to top down maltreatment protocols, though that may require a virus.

First I’m taking as a city-wide change, the second city is normal, but hospitals only.

#1 if indeed short term — 4 weeks, would expect all cause to short term go down due to lack of activity, fewer accidents. This is in the young predominantly. It would go up in older… fewer check-ins on less mobile. Without a virus and corresponding maltreatment recommendations might be a wash in terms of overall all cause, maybe lower in young cancelling higher in old. Without travel restrictions I would expect most to just leave actually. Maybe more mortality from old, immobile as people escape.

#2 Outside world as normal, hospitals change. You lose the visitors counter to bad medical decisions. You gain ability of staff and residents to counter bad medical decisions. You risk inexperience countering good nonintuitive medical decisions from people who know the patient. No idea how the scales of each compare…

Expand full comment

Bomb scenario 1 - My knee jerk response is ‘decrease’. Less activity = less death, right? But my practical experiences have shown that people die at home. Far fewer seem to die at work or moving about on an average day. There seems to be some sort of ‘sundowners’ effect of being home.

Your second scenario is harder for me to puzzle out but this is what I came to.

Mortality would go up. Only the truly sick would visit hospitals, therefore more would die simply because they are the ones that die.

Keep the ‘well’ away and what are you left with?

Expand full comment