Only a politically based source would push such a questionable economic study that no other researcher has cited in reference according to Google Scholar. In fact the other publications by these authors are often uncited or are cited once or twice, which indicates a lack of confidence in their work by other researchers. The fact this study excluded any data containing what it considered possible voluntary actions from mandated actions based solely upon their own estimates is a questionable approach at best given that lockdowns as defined by the study are intended to affect public awareness and change actions. The second problem is that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between the effect of public awareness and the effect of lockdowns. If people and politicians react to the same information, for example deaths in geographical neighboring countries (many EU-countries reacted to deaths in Italy) or in another part of the same country, the effect of lockdowns cannot easily be separated from the effect of voluntary social distancing or, use of hand sanitizers. Hence, we find it problematic to use national lockdowns and differences in the progress of the pandemic in different regions to say anything about the effect of early lockdowns on the pandemic, as the estimated effect might just as well come from voluntary behavior changes, when people in Southern Italy react to the situation in Northern Italy. We have seen no studies which we believe credibly separate the effect of early lockdown from the effect of early voluntary behavior changes. Instead, the estimates in these studies capture the effects of lockdowns and voluntary behavior changes. As Herby (2021) illustrates, voluntary behavior changes are essential to a society’s response to an pandemic and can account for up to 90% of societies’ total response to the pandemic. Including these studies will greatly overestimate the effect of lockdowns, and, hence, we chose not to include studies focusing on timing of lockdowns in our review.