John Hopkins study finds lockdowns not effective.

lockdowns/mask mandates DEFINITELY helped where I live!

I keep track through our state website
no. of cases went way, way down to 27/100,000
no. of cases down, then less hospitalizations/deaths

soon as lockdowns/masks mandate lifted, cases shot up
got as high as almost 2,000 cases/100,000
with increased hospitalizations/deaths

Oompa Loompa said:

Did Pandemic Lockdowns Do Little to Prevent COVID Deaths?

Finally the "science" is catching up with common sense. I wonder if people will be censored for "misinformation" by quoting this study.

Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

Feb. 4, 2022 -- An analysis from a trio of economists says pandemic lockdowns during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did little to reduce the number of COVID-related deaths.

Lockdowns in the United States and Europe reduced COVID-related deaths by only .2%, and shelter-in-placed orders reduced deaths by 2.9%, the study says.

The findings, which have not been peer reviewed, conflict with previous studies that found lockdowns worked.

Oompa Loompa said:

Look around. Does it look like lockdowns worked. Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to talk about the article you posted, why post it in the first place?

Oompa Loompa said:

Look around. Does it look like lockdowns worked. Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

So you are arguing that it's up to me to research an report that has NOT been peer reviewed? How about you do your own research and get back to me?

Even the conclusion of the link you post says:

Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, senior author on the first ever study comparing the effect of lockdowns, question how the authors of the new study define “lockdown.”

“The authors define lockdown ‘as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention’. This would make a mask wearing policy a lockdown,” Bhatt said in a statement. “For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange.”

GreekOrthodox said:

Did you read the article?

Feb. 4, 2022 -- An analysis from a trio of economists says pandemic lockdowns during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did little to reduce the number of COVID-related deaths.

Lockdowns in the United States and Europe reduced COVID-related deaths by only .2%, and shelter-in-placed orders reduced deaths by 2.9%, the study says.

The findings, which have not been peer reviewed, conflict with previous studies that found lockdowns worked.

Click to expand...

Since when are economists experts in disease prevention?

Oompa Loompa said:

Look around. Does it look like lockdowns worked. Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed, my friend. It amazes me that you would come to such an odd illogical conclusion. Think. How are germs spread? It’s by people coughing into the air and another person breathing in those bad germs (from the cough). I personally try to sneeze in my shirt because I don’t want anyone else to get sick. But most people are either uneducated, or they simply do not care about other human beings. So lets say I cough on a bus. I spray my harmful germs into the air on the bus. What do you think is going to happen? Somebody on the bus now has a good chance of getting my cold. But if I was not on the bus, and I coughed in my home, there is no chance for people to get my germs because the germs are locked within the house to a great degree. The spray cloud that I put forth is not going out to other people. Now, imagine if you tell people to head out to bars and restaurants and several people cough in those places. What’s going to happen? People are going to get sick. But if they were home instead, those germs would not spread to others. I mean, do you actually think the germs pass through walls? If so, where is your documentation? If the germs escape up the chimney or out an open window, then how effective are those germs once they reach the wind and the open air? Would it not be greatly dispersed? Think man. What you propose is highly illogical. Don’t look at the data from some group (who are living in ignorance to the truth). Look at life and how it works.

Also, a true lockdown in my view would be people not allowed to go outside (unless they wear contagion outbreak suits), and food and water delivered to people’s homes with the delivery service dressed in contagion suits. Masks help to a degree but they are not like chemical outbreak suits. But limiting exposure of people to going out into public places does work if you logically think about it. It limits people coughing in enclosed environments vs. them staying home instead.

If a true lockdown (as I define it) were to take place, and it was enforced by the law, and if it was done early enough, the cases we see today would not be an issue at all. There would probably be no pandemic. Why? Because you stopped the spread or limited it to a great degree where the virus will not spread person to person. For how are germs spread? Person to person, right? The more you are around others with no protection, the greater risk of getting infected.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Since when are economists experts in disease prevention?

Click to expand...

They could be experts on data mining is all I can think of. However, I'll take the word of medical professionals and health informatics teams who understand what to look for.

Oompa Loompa said:

Did Pandemic Lockdowns Do Little to Prevent COVID Deaths?

Finally the "science" is catching up with common sense.

Click to expand...

Seems one would need to change "science" to "libertarian economists" and "common sense" to "pro-covid talking points" for this sentence to have any relationship to the linked article.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97056

Oompa Loompa said:

Look around. Does it look like lockdowns worked. Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

Also. Think. Would you feel safer in not getting a cold if you were in a room with a bunch of people coughing or if you were in the safety of your own home where nobody was coughing? Think. Are your chances better of getting a cold with a room full of people coughing or is it the same if you were home all alone in your house with nobody coughing? Think. Let the logic of this matter sink in now, my friend.

Oompa Loompa said:

Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

why would people die by staying home?

husband worked from home during lockdown
teen was home from school
our town was a ghost town with little traffic...it was eery

how would we have perished?
too much time together as a family?

Arent studies supposed to be peer reviewed prior to publication?

durangodawood said:

Arent studies supposed to be peer reviewed prior to publication?

Click to expand...

Not always, especially with the rapid pace of the pandemic.
But this study has bigger problems, mainly, cherry-picking studies to come to a predetermined conclusion, using a very peculiar definition of lockdown, and so on. Not to mention the political biases combined with a lack of expertise of the authors.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Since when are economists experts in disease prevention?

Click to expand...

Or scientists?

[Hint: Economics is not science.]

durangodawood said:

Arent studies supposed to be peer reviewed prior to publication?

Click to expand...

I always post my stuff to the arXiv around the time I submit it. Everyone gets to read it during peer review.

durangodawood said:

Arent studies supposed to be peer reviewed prior to publication?

Click to expand...

Actually not anymore. The peer review process can take years (usually does), and with scientific information needing to come out quicker in environments such as our current situation with the pandemic, people doing studies are publishing pre-prints in magazines prior to peer review.

Preprints on the coronavirus have been impressively reliable

^^^ article

Hans Blaster said:

Or scientists?

[Hint: Economics is not science.]

Click to expand...

It's the dismal science! If things are going bad, things will get worse. If things are going well, they will get bad, then worse.

Oompa Loompa said:

Look around. Does it look like lockdowns worked. Find out how many lives were "saved" because of lockdowns and compare it to the number of people who died because of the lockdowns and tell me if they worked.

Click to expand...

However you want to define 'lockdowns' (how on earth would they include masks as part of the definition?), Australia was more rigorous than the US. Here are two death rates per 100,000.

274
18

Guess which country each is from...

Oompa Loompa said:

Did Pandemic Lockdowns Do Little to Prevent COVID Deaths?

Finally the "science" is catching up with common sense. I wonder if people will be censored for "misinformation" by quoting this study.

Click to expand...

I've worked with some pretty high-end academics across a number of subjects, especially in Zoology, Chemistry and Electronic Engineering, seriously internationally renowned people within their fields, all ridiculously intelligent. Would I trust any of them to service my gas boiler? No, but I'd trust a gas engineer.

How many economists does it take to produce a credible epidemiology paper? Sounds like a bad joke to me...