Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

[HARK!]

Both nation's have their borders locked.

Your idea of locked is different than mine. Yours is ineffective.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I disagree.

Okay. But arguing that lockdowns are ineffective while using a different definition of "lockdown" than the rest of the world seems a bit disingenuous.

 

[Vylo]

How did you come up with that? Never mind. If you're relying on your imagination; it's deceiving you.

Can we get back on topic now?

You didn't seem to care about this when Trump was president. Not much at all changed when Biden became president, but now it is a pressing concern.

 

[Vylo]

Your idea of locked is different than mine. Yours is ineffective.

What are you defining as locked?

 

[JustOneWay]

Mexico is a hotbed for Covid; and they're exporting it to the U.S., via our porous Southern border, thanks to Biden.

The Franks and Jills in the bars are infecting way more people than illegals are.

 

[expos4ever]

I disagree.

How, exactly, does having to show a vaccination passport to eat a hamburger in a restaurant constitute a lockdown?

You need to have a shirt to eat a hamburger in a restaurant. Is that a lockdown? If not, why not?

 

[HARK!]

The Franks and Jills in the bars are infecting way more people than illegals are.

Source?

 

[Pommer]

Mexico is a hotbed for Covid; and they're exporting it to the U.S., via our porous Southern border, thanks to Biden. In contrast, legitimate truckers from Canada, who bring us goods that we would actually find useful, are protesting the hoops that they have to jump through at our Northern border.

Go figure.

According to Worldofmeters USA is ranked 36th @230,928/million population and the “hotbed of COVID” is ranked 130th @38,356/million

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Mexico is a hotbed for Covid; and they're exporting it to the U.S., via our porous Southern border, thanks to Biden.

How do they "export" Covid to the US? The US already has more than enough covid cases itself.
And since we've established that "Lockdowns Don't Work"(tm), having people around, be they Mexican, american or anybodyelseian shouldn't make any difference.

 

[JustOneWay]

Source?

Your own study.

 

[hedrick]

I found the article interesting. Some notes:

* They explicitly say they are not looking at the effect of whether an area used lockdowns, because they all did. Rather, they are looking at whether there was any benefits to lockdowns stricter than Sweden.

* They found that some approaches seem to have worked. The main ones are mask mandates and closing some businesses (particularly restaurants and bars).

My state (NJ) did 5 major things (after a brief token "lockdown", which had exceptions for anything anyone would actually want to do): closing restaurants and bars and some other stores, density limits on places that were open, school closures, banning large events, mask mandates.

It looks like closing restaurants and bars was right.
I don't think there's much evidence on other stores, and on State offices such as the DMV. (Given the large numbers of people and crowding in a DMV office, you'd think it might be like a bar.) The density limits were high enough to have virtually no effect most places. Mask mandates look right.

I'd like to see more data on large events. I only see one study in the group listed in the article that looked at them. It found no effect. It's easy to see why people thought it was a good idea, but I guess it's possible that it wasn't. Of course many sports events are outdoors, which wasn't a problem (and was allowed in NJ for most of the time, though not early).

I think it's generally recognized that school closures were a mistake. The NJ State government has been pressuring school districts to open, and for fall 2021 required it.

In any future epidemic, I'd favor much more limited closures and a mask mandate. Travel bans look silly in the US and Europe, though it might make sense in countries with fewer entry points if they're done early enough and combined with careful tracing.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Since you Hark! don't want to address this in the other thread where you brought this paper up, I am recopying my post:

NO one reviewed the paper as it is a WORKING PAPER and not peer-reviewed. The authors themselves describe it as a working paper.

It has not been reviewed until many public health/medical/epidemiologists started to respond to it. When a paper is peer-reviewed, that means it has been submitted to a specific type of journal and reviewed by experts in that field before it is published. A lack of peer-review would not make the paper more credible at all. BTW, only one of the authors is affiliated with John Hopkins University.

It is not a study and using that word is misleading for some. John Hopkins did not endorse it - yes, it is on their website but as a working paper. It is a meta-analysis, which are nice for reviewing overall results of studies on a topic, but does not involve the scientific process as in writing a hypothesis and establishing procedures and reporting results.
They, JHU, can yet reject the paper when it is submitted for peer review. Or if they take a good look at it.

I already noted how they picked 14 'working papers" and only one of the 34 involved an epidemiologist and no other medical/public health/ virologists at all....one has to strongly believe that the studies were picked for a reason - ignoring about 1400 other studies , most of which had different results.

It is not just a matter of statistics - methodology matters greatly. For example, they probably should have focused on infection rates as deaths lag in numbers, often by many months.

I would add that while the authors focused on mortality - mortality greatly improved over the first year as medications like Remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies, started to be used and then also Dexamethazone an blood thinners as the problem of blood clots from Covid became obvious.

To be clearer - lockdowns, mask use, social distancing measures are done to prevent transmission. Whether a case of covid leads to death is affected by MANY other factors - preexisting conditions, for example, and availability of medical services (as in hospitals having ventilators as needed, availability of hospital beds and staff), availability of testing, the availability of masks which was a real problem in 2020. This is part of the methodology that the 'study' is being criticized for.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I also ask HARK!, what experience do you have with research and critical review?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I also wrote this:

That "study" is not what you and others on the right want to believe.

It is a 'literature review' where 3 economists picked 34 other studies out of 1400+ other papers (can you say cherry-picked?), then they wrote a almost meaningless definition of "lockdown" so that even just having to wear a mask was considered a lockdown..
It is not peer-reviewed though it showed up as reviewed - note that it is a Wordpress document?

check:
Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

Have you seen the so-called “Johns Hopkins study” that’s been making the social media and Bill Maher rounds lately? Some folks have been asserting that this “Johns Hopkins study” somehow showed that Covid-19 “lockdowns” have been essentially useless. If you haven’t seen what they’ve been referring to, could it possibly be because there’s been so-called “a full-on media blackout” of this so-called “Johns Hopkins study,” as an article for Fox News has claimed ? Or maybe, just maybe, this “Johns Hopkins study” didn’t receive much press because it wasn’t exactly what some people have been claiming that it is.​

If you’ve noticed, some have been repeating the name “Johns Hopkins study” as if it were some kind of magical phrase like “open sesame” or “MMMbop.” In actuality, it’s not really appropriate here to call what’s being circulated a “Johns Hopkins study,” which might suggest that Johns Hopkins University has somehow commissioned or endorsed the study. Nevertheless, some people and social media accounts have been pushing the whole Johns Hopkins name....​

Yeah, the University itself didn’t write the paper, because buildings can’t type on laptops without crushing them. Heck, the paper even stated that, “views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with.”....

Oh, and note that Herby, Jonung, and Hanke themselves used the term “working paper” to describe what they had put together. Simply calling it a “Johns Hopkins study” glosses over this important distinction. A working paper is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable scientific journal.....​

By the way, what did the authors consider lockdowns? Well, according to the working paper, “lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).”​

Holy changing definitions, Batman. By Herby, Jonung, and Hanke’s definition, even face mask requirements would be considered a “lockdown,” right? After all, face masks are a NPI since you don’t eat or inject face masks into you. Yet, how many times have your heard when wearing Sa mask, “how’s that lockdown of your face going?”​

So here is a short summary of the problems with the article:

1. It is not peer-reviewed
2. John Hopkins did not publish it - it is a "working paper" so that is probably why it is a Wordpress document.
3. It is a medical evaluation by 3 economists - no public health person or epidemiologists or such. As the author said, that is like 3 proctologists writing advice about the economy.
4. A poor, basically meaningless definition of a 'lockdown'.
5. It used 34 other papers out of 1400 + to review - but 12 of those studies were not peer reviewed (also "working papers"), and only one of the 34 was by epidemiologist. It did not include all the studies that said otherwise from their apparent aim.

Don't rely on this working paper.
s

 

[HARK!]

@FreeinChrist I'll have to get back to you on this. Right now I'm giving my attention to the injustice that is happening in Canada.

 

[chad kincham]

Interesting conspiracy theory. Too bad for you it is fake.

It’s most definitely not fake - the globalists war-gamed a coronavirus virus two months before COVID19 was released in Wuhan, in EVENT 201 - - and like globalists love to do, they warned us it was coming:

In 2017 Anthony Fauci made a very strange prediction, with an even stranger certainty.

With complete confidence Fauci announced that during the first term of President Trump a surprise outbreak of an infectious disease would surely happen.

Here’s what he said: (3)

“There is NO QUESTION there is going to be a challenge for the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.

“There will be a SURPRISE OUTBREAK. There’s NO DOUBT in anyones mind about this.”

How could Fauci guarantee a surprise outbreak to happen during the first term of the Trump administration?

And globalist Bill and Melinda Gates guaranteed an imminent global pandemic

In 2018 Bill Gates publicly announced that a global pandemic was on it’s way that could wipe out 30 million people. He said this would probably happen during the next decade. (4)

Melinda Gates added that an engineered virus is humanities greatest threat and also assured this would hit humanity in the coming years. (5)

‘A global pandemic is ON IT’S WAY. An ENGINEERED VIRUS is humanities greatest threat. This will happen in the NEXT DECADE.’ – BILL GATES, in 2018


They wargamed the COVID virus by name two months before the outbreak:

The Event 201 scenario | A pandemic tabletop exercise

 

[Pommer]

It’s most definitely not fake - the globalists war-gamed a coronavirus virus two months before COVID19 was released in Wuhan {Pommer’s emphasis}, in EVENT 201 - - and like globalists love to do, they warned us it was coming:

In 2017 Anthony Fauci made a very strange prediction, with an even stranger certainty.

With complete confidence Fauci announced that during the first term of President Trump a surprise outbreak of an infectious disease would surely happen.

Here’s what he said: (3)

“There is NO QUESTION there is going to be a challenge for the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.

“There will be a SURPRISE OUTBREAK. There’s NO DOUBT in anyones mind about this.”

How could Fauci guarantee a surprise outbreak to happen during the first term of the Trump administration?

And globalist Bill and Melinda Gates guaranteed an imminent global pandemic

In 2018 Bill Gates publicly announced that a global pandemic was on it’s way that could wipe out 30 million people. He said this would probably happen during the next decade. (4)

Melinda Gates added that an engineered virus is humanities greatest threat and also assured this would hit humanity in the coming years. (5)

‘A global pandemic is ON IT’S WAY. An ENGINEERED VIRUS is humanities greatest threat. This will happen in the NEXT DECADE.’ – BILL GATES, in 2018


They wargamed the COVID virus by name two months before the outbreak:

The Event 201 scenario | A pandemic tabletop exercise

“Released” , uh-huh.

We will experience another pandemic in the next decade as well.
Everybody knows this.
Responsible people in government will have planned for it to happen.
After the pandemic rages for a while, some folks will eye these preparations as some sort of “proof” that “it was all planned”.

 

[Ligurian]

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

So... what was the real purpose of the lockdowns then? I remember thinking from the beginning that the people in charge weren't very proactive.

“China has done many good things to slow down the virus,” Tedros said. “The whole world can judge. There is no spinning here.”

 

[Ligurian]

It’s most definitely not fake - the globalists war-gamed a coronavirus virus two months before COVID19 was released in Wuhan, in EVENT 201 - - and like globalists love to do, they warned us it was coming:

In 2017 Anthony Fauci made a very strange prediction, with an even stranger certainty.

With complete confidence Fauci announced that during the first term of President Trump a surprise outbreak of an infectious disease would surely happen.

Here’s what he said: (3)

“There is NO QUESTION there is going to be a challenge for the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.

“There will be a SURPRISE OUTBREAK. There’s NO DOUBT in anyones mind about this.”

How could Fauci guarantee a surprise outbreak to happen during the first term of the Trump administration?

And globalist Bill and Melinda Gates guaranteed an imminent global pandemic

In 2018 Bill Gates publicly announced that a global pandemic was on it’s way that could wipe out 30 million people. He said this would probably happen during the next decade. (4)

Melinda Gates added that an engineered virus is humanities greatest threat and also assured this would hit humanity in the coming years. (5)

‘A global pandemic is ON IT’S WAY. An ENGINEERED VIRUS is humanities greatest threat. This will happen in the NEXT DECADE.’ – BILL GATES, in 2018


They wargamed the COVID virus by name two months before the outbreak:

The Event 201 scenario | A pandemic tabletop exercise

It's absolutely true that governments run training exercises so they know how to react to certain disasters. The timing of the thing is the key, IMO. If it's close enough to the actual event, it looks like a dress rehearsal. Who's to say it's not?

Internationalism spreads disease... why doesn't the cure ever start from there?

 

[stevil]

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Did they research the success of NZ and Australia?