Johns Hopkins study finds lockdowns reduced COVID-19 mortality by only 0.2%...

[posty 2,700]

https://www.kusi.com/johns-hopkins-study-finds-lockdowns-reduced-covid-19-mortality-by-only-0-2/

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – If you are one of the many people who say the COVID-19 lockdowns did nothing to make you safer, yet another study has been published proving you were right all along.

The new study from Johns Hopkins has found that the lockdowns had little public health effects, and found they caused enormous harm to our society.

Rational Ground founder Justin Hart has appeared on KUSI News for nearly two years explaining this exact thing, and he joined Ginger Jeffries on Good Evening San Diego to break down the findings and explain how it has resulted in a massive distrust in government by Americans.

The study states, “lockdowns contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.” Adding that, “our study fails to demonstrate significant positive effects of mandated behavioral changes (lockdowns).This should draw our focus to the role of voluntary behavioral changes.”

Many mainstream media reports have reported the study’s findings to be “shocking,” but many experts like Justin Hart are not shocked by them at all.

Since the study found the lockdowns brought “devastating effects” to society, the authors are recommending they be “rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Despite the revelations by this study, California students are still forced to be masked up at school, and Governor Newsom’s statewide indoor mask mandate is still in place.

KUSI News reached out to County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher and Mayor Todd Gloria, both supporters of the lockdowns, for comment on the study but neither has gotten back.

KEY STATS FROM STUDY:

• The lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths by about 0.2% in the United States and Europe.
• Closing non-essential businesses reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%, like related to bars.
• Lockdowns limited public’s access to outdoor recreational activities, forcing them to eat at less safe indoor locations.
• Evidence shows limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality.

 The complete study from Johns Hopkins University can be read here.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

You mean lockdowns don't work?  Masks don't work?  The jab doesn't work?   "Science" is really taking it on the chin lately. 

[RLLD 4,230]

Wait, this is "misinformation" right? I mean, this is not the narrative.....  is Hopkins going to be cancelled?  Should we cancel the people who said the opposite last month?

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

18 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

You mean lockdowns don't work?  Masks don't work?  The jab doesn't work?   "Science" is really taking it on the chin lately. 

I think the vaccines work, I just think they were necessary for younger people.  The older people should get the vaccination.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think the vaccines work, I just think they were necessary for younger people.  The older people should get the vaccination.

Not a vaccine, but I agree that it helps lessen symptoms. And I have always been on board with older people and immune compromised getting the jab to soften the blow.  As well as taking supplements that do the same thing.  If the government has sold the jab this way and kept everything open, we wouldn't be in shambles.  And Fauci wouldn't have made millions. 

[avoiding injuries 1,584]

They got what they wanted out of it, the 2020 election. 

[edjr 6,592]

2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Not a vaccine, but I agree that it helps lessen symptoms. And I have always been on board with older people and immune compromised getting the jab to soften the blow.  As well as taking supplements that do the same thing.  If the government has sold the jab this way and kept everything open, we wouldn't be in shambles.  And Fauci wouldn't have made millions. 

[TimHauck 2,877]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

Wait, this is "misinformation" right? I mean, this is not the narrative.....  is Hopkins going to be cancelled?  Should we cancel the people who said the opposite last month?

 

Yes it is.

First of all, it’s not “Hopkins” saying it, it’s researchers in the Applied Economics department (I think maybe the same department that housed one of the original misinformation studies by Genevieve Briand which was my motivation for starting to post in the GC), who specifically state their opinions do not  represent the university. 
 

Link to study - https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

In general, this is not its own study but rather a meta analysis of other studies.  They supposedly started with thousands of studies and narrowed it down to a few dozen or so in total.

The “-0.2%” in particular is based on 7 studies (page 30).  However, the weighting are they use makes it really only based on one study.  And not only that, this one study (Chisadza et al -  https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-13-03042/article_deploy/sustainability-13-03042-v2.pdf) comes to a different conclusion than the numbers they use!  

 

 

 

 

And even so, this meta analysis still claims closing non-essential businesses resulted in a 10.6% decline in deaths

 

 

 

[Cdub100 3,909]

Everyone has gotten COVID or will get it shortly.

You can't stop it. YOU WILL BE EXPOSED! Lockdowns are dumb. Masks are dumb.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes it is.

First of all, it’s not “Hopkins” saying it, it’s researchers in the Applied Economics department (I think maybe the same department that housed one of the original misinformation studies by Genevieve Briand which was my motivation for starting to post in the GC), who specifically state their opinions do not  represent the university. 
 

Link to study - https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

In general, this is not its own study but rather a meta analysis of other studies.  They supposedly started with thousands of studies and narrowed it down to a few dozen or so in total.

The “-0.2%” in particular is based on 7 studies (page 30).  However, the weighting are they use makes it really only based on one study.  And not only that, this one study (Chisadza et al -  https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-13-03042/article_deploy/sustainability-13-03042-v2.pdf) comes to a different conclusion than the numbers they use!  

 

 

 

 

And even so, this meta analysis still claims closing non-essential businesses resulted in a 10.6% decline in deaths

 

 

 

Mom!!! Where's the meatloaf!!

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

[TimHauck 2,877]

19 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Everyone has gotten COVID or will get it shortly.

You can't stop it. YOU WILL BE EXPOSED! Lockdowns are dumb. Masks are dumb.

Probably true about lockdowns.   You can definitely argue whether they were worth the economic cost.   But I don't think you can argue that people staying home in 2020 resulted in less deaths than there could have been.   If they were able to hold off on getting covid until the vaccines were available or until Omicron, then the "lockdowns" had an impact on deaths.

[realtruelove 18]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Probably true about lockdowns.   You can definitely argue whether they were worth the economic cost.   But I don't think you can argue that people staying home in 2020 resulted in less deaths than there could have been.   If they were able to hold off on getting covid until the vaccines were available or until Omicron, then the "lockdowns" had an impact on deaths.

Tim, what is your Vitamin D level?

[RLLD 4,230]

I suspect many truths will come out. 

I eagerly await that day when the links between Fauci and big pharma are discovered.  Though he might not be alive when its found out, but at least his name will be vilified for all of history.

In the final review our leaders will either be outed as corrupt or incompetent by this event, in a big way.

 big time

[posty 2,700]

Snopes has to weigh in with their non-biased fact checking...

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/

Blah, blah, blah, deflect, deflect, deflect...

The Bottom Line

The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.

Furthermore, the conclusions of this non-peer reviewed working paper run counter to published studies in academic journals that found lockdowns did prevent COVID-19 deaths. One study, for example, found that lockdown policies helped prevent millions of deaths early in the pandemic. NPR reported:

Solomon Hsiang, director of the Global Policy Lab, says these unprecedented shelter-in-place orders came at an extreme economic cost. Yet when government officials were ordering them, it was unclear exactly how significant the social benefits would be.

“The value of these studies you’re seeing today is that they’re demonstrating what the benefits of this policy are,” Hsiang said in a press call discussing the studies. “They averted tens of millions of additional infections and millions of deaths.”

[Baker Boy 1,699]

17 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Yes it is.

First of all, it’s not “Hopkins” saying it, it’s researchers in the Applied Economics department (I think maybe the same department that housed one of the original misinformation studies by Genevieve Briand which was my motivation for starting to post in the GC), who specifically state their opinions do not  represent the university. 
 

Link to study - https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

In general, this is not its own study but rather a meta analysis of other studies.  They supposedly started with thousands of studies and narrowed it down to a few dozen or so in total.

The “-0.2%” in particular is based on 7 studies (page 30).  However, the weighting are they use makes it really only based on one study.  And not only that, this one study (Chisadza et al -  https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-13-03042/article_deploy/sustainability-13-03042-v2.pdf) comes to a different conclusion than the numbers they use!  

 

Are you wearing a mask right now?

[Cdub100 3,909]

7 hours ago, RLLD said:

I suspect many truths will come out. 

I eagerly await that day when the links between Fauci and big pharma are discovered.  Though he might not be alive when its found out, but at least his name will be vilified for all of history.

In the final review our leaders will either be outed as corrupt or incompetent by this event, in a big way.

 big time

The truth will never come out. Short of a complete change over in government I'm talking a REAL insurrection the truth will never come out. And even then the people will be told what they want to hear.

History is written by the winners is one of the truest statements ever said.

[edjr 6,592]

Has John Hopkins been banned from the NCAA yet for misinformation?

[TimHauck 2,877]

1 hour ago, posty said:

Snopes has to weigh in with their non-biased fact checking...

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/

Blah, blah, blah, deflect, deflect, deflect...

The Bottom Line

The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.

Furthermore, the conclusions of this non-peer reviewed working paper run counter to published studies in academic journals that found lockdowns did prevent COVID-19 deaths. One study, for example, found that lockdown policies helped prevent millions of deaths early in the pandemic. NPR reported:

Solomon Hsiang, director of the Global Policy Lab, says these unprecedented shelter-in-place orders came at an extreme economic cost. Yet when government officials were ordering them, it was unclear exactly how significant the social benefits would be.

“The value of these studies you’re seeing today is that they’re demonstrating what the benefits of this policy are,” Hsiang said in a press call discussing the studies. “They averted tens of millions of additional infections and millions of deaths.”

The rest of the paragraphs probably weren't necessary but the sentence specific to this particular study is 100% accurate.

Has anyone citing this study as proof actually read it?   In addition to what I already listed, there are several other red flags, including the fact that they excluded studies where lockdowns were done early (page 11)

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The rest of the paragraphs probably weren't necessary but the sentence specific to this particular study is 100% accurate.

Has anyone citing this study as proof actually read it?   In addition to what I already listed, there are several other red flags, including the fact that they excluded studies where lockdowns were done early (page 11)

Do people who know you feel as sorry for you as we do?  

[DonS 3,292]

29 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Do people who know you feel as sorry for you as we do?  

Does he ever leave his bubble boy sanctuary to even interact with people in person?  I'm thinking us group of über ghey online misfits is all he has.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

23 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Everyone has gotten COVID or will get it shortly.

You can't stop it. YOU WILL BE EXPOSED! Lockdowns are dumb. Masks are dumb.

Yoopers inbreed and produce increasingly dumber Yoopers, kind of like family-style "Idiocracy."

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

Imagine being like Rusty and always being on the same side as Nancy Pelosi on the issues? 

[edjr 6,592]

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine being like Rusty and always being on the same side as Nancy Pelosi on the issues? 

Ugh. No. Pathetic 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine being like Rusty and always being on the same side as Nancy Pelosi on the issues? 

Even Nancy Pelosi isn't on Nancy Pelosi's side of the issues. 

[RLLD 4,230]

I surmise that the lock downs and remote experience for many will fade quickly as the truth is now allowed to be known.

Let's see how the politicians play it

[Masshole 642]

17 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The rest of the paragraphs probably weren't necessary but the sentence specific to this particular study is 100% accurate.

Has anyone citing this study as proof actually read it?   In addition to what I already listed, there are several other red flags, including the fact that they excluded studies where lockdowns were done early (page 11)

You make good points.    But sometimes you have to just pull back to 30,000 feet and observe and not get too deep in the weeds.   We were all told that Florida, Sweden, and to some degree - Texas would all  see Armageddon level results due to their path of limited/no lockdowns.   That didn't happen.    And the areas/states/countries that did lockdown performed no better than the ones that didn't.     We have the benefit of hind-sight now.   You really don't need any fancy (or fake) studies to ascertain the results at this point.     And when you factor in the tremendous financial and social costs of the lockdowns, to attain minimal to negligible results - then you really don't need a fancy study to figure that out.    

The CV19 lockdowns resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history.    Think about that while you ponder whether it was all worth it.   

[TimHauck 2,877]

3 hours ago, Masshole said:

You make good points.    But sometimes you have to just pull back to 30,000 feet and observe and not get too deep in the weeds.   We were all told that Florida, Sweden, and to some degree - Texas would all  see Armageddon level results due to their path of limited/no lockdowns.   That didn't happen.    And the areas/states/countries that did lockdown performed no better than the ones that didn't.     We have the benefit of hind-sight now.   You really don't need any fancy (or fake) studies to ascertain the results at this point.     And when you factor in the tremendous financial and social costs of the lockdowns, to attain minimal to negligible results - then you really don't need a fancy study to figure that out.    

The CV19 lockdowns resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history.    Think about that while you ponder whether it was all worth it.   

I wasn’t really in favor of lockdowns after like the first 6 weeks or so.   But 1) I think a lot of the damage done to businesses, and “wealth transfer” was going to happen regardless because a lot of people would have voluntarily stayed home and used Amazon, etc a lot more.  And 2) I don’t think there’s any doubt people staying home at worst delayed cases and deaths. 
 

I agree Florida, Sweden, etc didn’t see “Armageddon” and I think they are evidence that the lockdowns weren’t worth the economic cost, but purely looking at Covid numbers there is certainly evidence that lockdowns helped in a lot of places.  In the US, states like Maine and Hawaii had stricter restrictions and saw few Covid (and few excess) deaths. Sweden’s neighbors such as Denmark, Norway and Finland all did much better in terms of Covid numbers.   Places like New Zealand and Australia were able to nearly accomplish zero Covid until more recently, but of course they also have the advantage of being island nations which helped them do a true lockdown.

[Masshole 642]

25 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I wasn’t really in favor of lockdowns after like the first 6 weeks or so.   But 1) I think a lot of the damage done to businesses, and “wealth transfer” was going to happen regardless because a lot of people would have voluntarily stayed home and used Amazon, etc a lot more.  And 2) I don’t think there’s any doubt people staying home at worst delayed cases and deaths. 
 

I agree Florida, Sweden, etc didn’t see “Armageddon” and I think they are evidence that the lockdowns weren’t worth the economic cost, but purely looking at Covid numbers there is certainly evidence that lockdowns helped in a lot of places.  In the US, states like Maine and Hawaii had stricter restrictions and saw few Covid (and few excess) deaths. Sweden’s neighbors such as Denmark, Norway and Finland all did much better in terms of Covid numbers.   Places like New Zealand and Australia were able to nearly accomplish zero Covid until more recently, but of course they also have the advantage of being island nations which helped them do a true lockdown.

Maine has about 5 people and a couple of thousand moose in it.     Hawaii is islands.   Come on. 

I'd be interested to see real data that shows those countries did "better" than Sweden.    And not manipulatively snipped data (i.e. only looking at a 6 month period where Sweden was doing its worst).    At this point I am really not that interested in case and hospitalization rates.    Give me deaths from Covid, from March 2020 to the present, per 100K population.    You may prove me wrong but I think you are going to have a hard time finding non-manipulated data that backs up your assertion that Sweden did "worse".    

[MDC 7,429]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:21 PM, TimmySmith said:

You mean lockdowns don't work?  Masks don't work?  The jab doesn't work?   "Science" is really taking it on the chin lately. 

Good ole Timmah.  

[TimHauck 2,877]

29 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Maine has about 5 people and a couple of thousand moose in it.     Hawaii is islands.   Come on. 

I'd be interested to see real data that shows those countries did "better" than Sweden.    And not manipulatively snipped data (i.e. only looking at a 6 month period where Sweden was doing its worst).    At this point I am really not that interested in case and hospitalization rates.    Give me deaths from Covid, from March 2020 to the present, per 100K population.    You may prove me wrong but I think you are going to have a hard time finding non-manipulated data that backs up your assertion that Sweden did "worse".    

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
 

Scroll down to deaths per million and pick any countries you want.  Sweden has over twice the cumulative deaths per million as Denmark, and over 3x that of Finland and Norway.  However, Sweden did fair better than a lot of other European countries like the UK, Spain and France.

[Baker Boy 1,699]

22 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Maine has about 5 people and a couple of thousand moose in it.     Hawaii is islands.   Come on. 

I'd be interested to see real data that shows those countries did "better" than Sweden.    And not manipulatively snipped data (i.e. only looking at a 6 month period where Sweden was doing its worst).    At this point I am really not that interested in case and hospitalization rates.    Give me deaths from Covid, from March 2020 to the present, per 100K population.    You may prove me wrong but I think you are going to have a hard time finding non-manipulated data that backs up your assertion that Sweden did "worse".    

This link shows deaths per million. The USA Covid death total is the 17th worst in the world out of 155 countries.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

But this is not about just Covid deaths . It is about the increase in suicides, drug ODs, mental illness, how much you ruined the economy, increased crime, etc. or how much you screwed up your country.

[Masshole 642]

29 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
 

Scroll down to deaths per million and pick any countries you want.  Sweden has over twice the cumulative deaths per million as Denmark, and over 3x that of Finland and Norway.  However, Sweden did fair better than a lot of other European countries like the UK, Spain and France.

Yah, I think you got me there.   I think you figured out where I misfired - it was in comparison to some of the other EU countries where Sweden looks like they did OK and I think I mixed that up with a comparison to their direct neighbors.   But you are correct, Finland, Norway, and Denmark did come out better in CV19 deaths/million.    

[Masshole 642]

9 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Yah, I think you got me there.   I think you figured out where I misfired - it was in comparison to some of the other EU countries where Sweden looks like they did OK and I think I mixed that up with a comparison to their direct neighbors.   But you are correct, Finland, Norway, and Denmark did come out better in CV19 deaths/million.    

Hang on, pump the brakes.   Something doesn't seem right to me.    Finland and Norway have almost the exact same population size (5.52m vs 5.35m).   Finland has had 2,041 total CV19 deaths and Norway 1,497.   So how is it that Norway's deaths per million rate is almost 2 pts higher than Finland's (4.94 vs 3.06)?      Denmark has a slightly larger population than Finland and Norway (5.82m), had 3,800 total CV19 deaths, but has a rate (2.92) that's lower than both Finland and Norway.     These #s seem off to me.    

[fandandy 3,313]

Have there been studies that include obesity and diabetes rates pertaining to Covid deaths in these countries?

America is fat as fock and it seems that even toddlers here have diabetes now.

Can we just collectively accept that the USA is a failed experiment?

And to reiterate from a previous post in another thread, I hope Russia kicks our teeth in if we ever intervene in this ordeal regarding the Ukraine, and I pray to baby Jesus, that Europe will finally see what a pile of sh1t nation we actually are and that the American people will pull their heads out of their collective asses and begin to demand better from our so-called leaders.

We are easily the smuggest nation in the history of mankind.

[TimHauck 2,877]

1 hour ago, Baker Boy said:

 

But this is not about just Covid deaths 

For the purpose of this thread/study,  yes it is