John Hopkins study finds lockdowns not effective.

[ThatRobGuy]

A couple points of order.

1)
Throwing out the name "Johns Hopkins" to the casual reader is going to make them assume it's something to do with their medical realm. In fact, this study (which still isn't peer reviewed) was a collaboration from these 3 people:

The authors of the study are Jonas Herby, a special adviser at the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, PhD, a professor of economics at Lund University in Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, founder and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics

We know what the economists' position was on lockdowns, and they'd have every interest in shooting them down.

2)
Any time you have a measure or plan that's based on human behavior, compliance with said plan is going to dictate how effective it is. Here in the US, in many states, a lot of people just ignored the policies. Any policy is going to be ineffective if a huge chunk of the population is ignoring it.


...and I'm saying this as a person who was opposed to a lot of the lockdown measures and was more inclined to embrace the Sweden model of responding to covid.

But I'm consistent enough to acknowledge that a lockdown policy (if strictly enough enforced) would certainly slow the spread of any disease. It's all just a matter of how strictly a governing entity wants to actually enforce it.

For instance, if there were national guard and police on every street making sure you didn't go your neighbor's house, I can all but guarantee you're not going to spread a virus to your neighbor. However, if it's merely just a suggestion, and it's not being enforced, and you go over there anyway, I wouldn't be surprised that you gave them something.

Obviously, nobody wants that former type of environment though (myself included), so a governor issuing a "stay at home order" without any teeth is basically the embodiment of "ineffective policy"

 

[Tanj]

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.

First thread on this from a week ago
Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

Although why more discussion is needed around some silly blog article from people with no experience in the field escapes me.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

First thread on this from a week ago
Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

Although why more discussion is needed around some silly blog article from people with no experience in the field escapes me.

I've seen a lot of people on social media linking this article...

Translated, it basically says

"This set of guidelines I chose to ignore were ineffective"

A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.


It would be like if a person railed against the rules on drunk driving and said they were pointless, and still went out and drove drunk anyway and killed someone, and then said "see, I told you those guidelines were ineffective"

The stay at home orders would've been very effective if a large enough percentage of people would've followed them.

The question, to me at least, was a matter of a risk assessment combined with testing and trying to mitigate the worst effects.

While I would say the lockdown orders would've been effective (had people actually followed them), I'm also pragmatic enough to know that expecting people to follow them diligently for an extended period of time is an incredible longshot.

It'd be like going into a frat house with internet access and saying "alright, nobody drink beer or look at pics of naked women on the internet"

 

[Bradskii]

There are naked women on the internet?

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

My problem with that study is that it is a literature review by 3 economists that selected 36 articles out of 1400+.
IN the article is this:

In the new paper, published in the journal Studies in Applied Economics, the authors looked at data from 34 other studies published by July 1, 2020, during the early part of the global pandemic. They looked at mortality rates but didn’t consider how lockdowns might have affected the number of infections or virus-related hospitalizations. They also didn’t use studies that forecast deaths.

The authors define lockdowns as “compulsory nonpharmaceutical interventions … that restrict internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.” They didn’t consider government recommendations, information campaigns, mass testing, or vaccine measures.
​

They focused on the economic factors- which makes sense as they are economists and not medical doctors, or virologists or microbiologists or epidemiologists.
At the end of the articles is this:

“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.”
​

There are too many issues with their study.

​

 

[FreeinChrist]

Arent studies supposed to be peer reviewed prior to publication?

The credible ones are.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There are naked women on the internet?

Awe shucks, I just let the most tightly held secret out of the bag. This is going to change everything.

I just hope people don't find out about the free music and movies...wait...I've said too much.

 

[renniks]

I think the point is that it pretty much evens out. Locking everything down might stop infections for a time, but it's impossible to live that way and in apartments and such you are still going to have some spread. Not everyone can actually keep their distance. But the same amount of spread eventually happened regardless of initial shutdowns. It's just delaying the inevitable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Awe shucks, I just let the most tightly held secret out of the bag. This is going to change everything.

I just hope people don't find out about the free music and movies...wait...I've said too much.

Never mind @Bradskii, he's been in a coma since 1993. (Welcome back to the conscious, @Bradskii, in weird facts you wouldn't have expected -- First Lady Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump [the guy from the tabloids who owns those casinos in Atlantic city], but he lost reelection in 2020. He's currently DJing weddings at his club in Palm Beach.)

 

[Pommer]

There are naked women on the internet?

Pictures of cats, too!

 

[Rachel20]

I wonder if people will be censored for "misinformation" by quoting this study.

I'm sure they'll do Goebbels proud. Here's the video that got Malone banned from twatter -

The Pfizer Inoculations For COVID-19 – More Harm Than Good – VIDEO – Canadian Covid Care Alliance

 

[FireDragon76]

Dr. John Campbell critiqued that study and demonstrated how their conclusion was flawed (it was a retrospective study, which is prone to bias). The study was also written by economists, not healthcare specialists.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There are naked women on the internet?

Now I'm off to watch songs from Avenue Q... "The Internet is for porn"

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

you mean the lockdowns that were half ignored, barely implemented and didn't prevent people from crossing state lines....WOW who would have gussed.