Hopkins meta study show Covid lock downs nearly useless

[imported_tajmahal]

Johns Hopkins University report: Lockdowns did not work.

Image: Shutterstock.com The Washington Times has a blockbuster story today, on a report from the highly respected Johns Hopkins University, that the draconian lockdowns has little for no impact on the Coronavirus

www.kabc.com

"“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.”

Johns Hopkins Analysis: ‘Lockdowns Should Be Rejected Out of Hand’ | National Review

To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views were correct on this matter.

www.nationalreview.com

"
The aura of “expert” has lost its luster during Covid, as our supposedly bigger brains have been proved wrong repeatedly.

Two of these have been Ezekiel Emanuel and Anthony Fauci. Both were enthusiastic proponents of societal lockdowns as a means of preventing deaths and the spread of Covid. We now know from a Johns Hopkins blockbuster meta-analysis that “shutting it down,” in Donald Trump’s awkward phrase, did very little to prevent deaths.

It’s a long, arcane, and detailed analysis, and I can’t present every nuance or statistic here. But I think these are the primary takeaways. From the study:...................

Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission […]
In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths.”

Why might that be?

Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others.

Worse, the lockdowns caused tremendous harm:

Unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality"

To which I would add another: We can never squelch free discourse and debate on public-health issues again.

People who argued against the “scientific consensus” about the lockdowns were stifled, censored by Big Tech, denigrated by the media, and mocked by establishment scientists. That was essentially “anti-science.” The scientific method needs heterodox voices to speak freely if it is to function properly.

This subsequent look-back shows why. To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views–such as the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration—were correct on this matter."

Have at it you anti-science whiners.


"

No surprises for me and for anyone who didn't trust Fauci. I'm sure all the lefty Authoritarians in here will throw a fit and lie about a John Hopkins meta study, but it is what it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Was there any data to show that lock-downs were ineffective because so many conservative assholes refused to get vaccinated and wear masks? There's nothing like catching Covid-19 out on the street and bringing it home to a nice snug home to sneeze in so everybody sheltering gets it.

 

[nakedfrog]

The lock-downs were only even attempted in early 2020 (March to June appears to be the general dates in discussion), and not well adhered-to in my experience, and they're only specifically looking at deaths.

We only include studies that attempt to establish a relationship (or lack thereof) between
lockdown policies and COVID-19 mortality or excess mortality. We exclude studies that use
cases, hospitalizations, or other measures.

So, I think to say "lock-downs were nearly useless" isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the study.

 

[gothuevos]

The lock-downs were only even attempted in early 2020 (March to June appears to be the general dates in discussion), and not well adhered-to in my experience, and they're only specifically looking at deaths.

So, I think to say "lock-downs were nearly useless" isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the study.

Exactly, nobody has been in a "lockdown" since spring or 2020. Talking about the US.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

another winner from tajjy

 

[Commodus]

Johns Hopkins University report: Lockdowns did not work.

Image: Shutterstock.com The Washington Times has a blockbuster story today, on a report from the highly respected Johns Hopkins University, that the draconian lockdowns has little for no impact on the Coronavirus

www.kabc.com

"“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.”

Johns Hopkins Analysis: ‘Lockdowns Should Be Rejected Out of Hand’ | National Review

To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views were correct on this matter.

www.nationalreview.com

"
The aura of “expert” has lost its luster during Covid, as our supposedly bigger brains have been proved wrong repeatedly.

Two of these have been Ezekiel Emanuel and Anthony Fauci. Both were enthusiastic proponents of societal lockdowns as a means of preventing deaths and the spread of Covid. We now know from a Johns Hopkins blockbuster meta-analysis that “shutting it down,” in Donald Trump’s awkward phrase, did very little to prevent deaths.

It’s a long, arcane, and detailed analysis, and I can’t present every nuance or statistic here. But I think these are the primary takeaways. From the study:...................


Why might that be?


Worse, the lockdowns caused tremendous harm:


To which I would add another: We can never squelch free discourse and debate on public-health issues again.

People who argued against the “scientific consensus” about the lockdowns were stifled, censored by Big Tech, denigrated by the media, and mocked by establishment scientists. That was essentially “anti-science.” The scientific method needs heterodox voices to speak freely if it is to function properly.

This subsequent look-back shows why. To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views–such as the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration—were correct on this matter."

Have at it you anti-science whiners.


"

No surprises for me and for anyone who didn't trust Fauci. I'm sure all the lefty Authoritarians in here will throw a fit and lie about a John Hopkins meta study, but it is what it is.

As usual, you take a shred of info and try to shoehorn it into your existing ideology, reality and context be damned.

The study revolves almost exclusively around the first wave of the pandemic, with some studies ending as soon as April 2020. Case levels were relatively low, and very few countries or regions had a laissez-faire attitude toward COVID-19 — even the likes of Florida and Texas had restrictions for a while. Outside of one study, this also doesn't really account for Alpha, Delta, Omicron or other variants. Remember how Sweden was seemingly doing well without lockdowns, only to watch that theory fall apart in fall 2020 as cases surged? Yeah, having adequate sample data matters.

I also have issues with the methodology. As the authors admit, this is a "meta-analysis" based on just 34 papers. Not only that, but only 22 of them were peer-reviewed — the other 12 were working papers. That doesn't automatically mean the working papers were wrong, but the whole point of peer review is to catch errors and omissions that might skew the result. This is not a comprehensive study of lockdown effectiveness; it's reviewing a handful of reviews, and imperfect ones at that.

There are also certain basic logical flaws here. It's difficult to compare performance in an area with limited lockdowns versus one with strict lockdowns, because those areas will have different populations, different climates, different cultural practices and different viral outbreak patterns. It's hard to definitively say lockdowns were ineffective in New York state, for instance, because you don't have a directly comparable state where there were no real lockdowns.

Moreover, the study undermines your own argument. To some degree, it contradicts itself: it says that behavioral changes prompted by restrictions had the biggest impact. This suggests society benefited from at least some lockdown measures, if just to encourage people to take safety precautions. I'd add that the authors betray a certain amount of bias as they make poorly supported claims about economic damage.

And I'd say this is contradicted by data I've seen. In my area, we get daily case statistics and have had lockdown measures that changed relatively frequently (in some cases, every several weeks). There's a familiar pattern: cases drop sharply a week or two after new restrictions kick in, and surge if the restrictions either end too soon or don't account for factors likely to result in a spike, such as kids returning to school. For that matter, we've seen countries where a lack of lockdown measures created serious problems, like the Delta wave that caused extremely high mortality in India during spring 2021 — Modi acted as if the pandemic were over, and by May thousands of people were dying every day (and that's just the official figure).

In short (because I suspect you've probably skipped a lot of this), this isn't the "a-ha!" moment you think it is. It's not conclusive proof lockdowns are ineffective, and the study itself has some conspicuous problems. It's a study of studies that relies on very limited data to reach some conclusions it can't really support.

 

[fskimospy]

First, the US never locked anything down.

Second, this is at odds with lots of other studies, which of course Taj ignored because he’s a dishonest person.

Third, the ‘lockdowns’ which did happen in the US were the closures of bars and restaurants, which the paper identifies as an effective measure.

Finally, the idea that these closures caused some sort of massive economic damage is at odds with what everyone here experienced with their own two eyes.

If the closures were what caused the economic damage and not fear of the virus, why was flight traffic down over 60% despite having literally no restrictions placed on it whatsoever?

edit: school closures were a bad idea though, yes!

 

[Jaskalas]

Ineffective because they could not truly be implemented, sustained, or repeated... perhaps.
But the basic premise was to flatten the curve. Of that wave. Which we did, I believe?

The point was to delay so hospitals can cope. They normally have high occupancy rates to begin with. So an actual surge of a disease that needs medical attention would just flatten this nation, and most medical care across the planet. We have little to no excess capacity built in and ready to go. We are unable to handle a true surge. Thankfully we did take some measures prior to vaccines. And the vaccine itself has prevented countless people from dying due to the absolute zero medical care you would receive if hospitals were swamped. Remember, a solid 64% of us were protected. Thenceforth, hospitals only needed to care for the 36%. Despite the stress from rapidly spreading Delta, and Omicron, enough of us were protected to not collapse the system. That those who were stupid actually had a hospital to go to.

Despite Republicans' best efforts to thwart our response and leave themselves vulnerable, mind you.

Point being, the initial lockdown did play a key role in not overwhelming the hospitals. Which was the goal. Later, other factors helped immensely. Above it all, our biggest challenge was human behavior and our biggest detractor was Republican policy.

 

[vi edit]

But the basic premise was to flatten the curve. Of that wave. Which we did, I believe?

Bingo. Flattening the curve isn't about reducing deaths as a key metric, it's about not overwhelming health care systems. See: last two years.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Lockdowns most likely are "useless" now. Back when the virus first entered the country, they would have been effective to some degree. But look who was in charge then.

 

[pmv]

Am a bit suspicious as the three authors of that 'study' all appear to be economists associated with right-wing think tanks, not epidemiologists or public health specailists. Economics (like psychology) seems to be more of an ideology than a science, so I don't trust anything they say.

 

[SmCaudata]

I see your right wing economist paper and raise you this..

Norway versus Sweden: A case study in COVID-19 response

Biljana Stangeland PhD, analyses the drastic disparity in COVID-19 casualties between Norway and Sweden looking the public health sector

www.openaccessgovernment.org

Norway v Sweeden is about as good as one can get for effect of lockdowns.

Also, New Zealand lockdowns certainly worked.

Lockdowns in the US were likely less effective than desired due to leadership in Washington. If the GOP didn't turn a public health into a partisan issue, there would have been more adoption of safe behaviors.

Also, when you look at current states in the US. States that actively fight infection prevention practices, like Florida, are getting destroyed.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Was there any data to show that lock-downs were ineffective because so many conservative assholes refused to get vaccinated and wear masks? There's nothing like catching Covid-19 out on the street and bringing it home to a nice snug home to sneeze in so everybody sheltering gets it.

I don't really know. It's just a University of John Hopkins meta study. I'm sure you can blame anyone in the world you want to, even if they carry no fault.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The lock-downs were only even attempted in early 2020 (March to June appears to be the general dates in discussion), and not well adhered-to in my experience, and they're only specifically looking at deaths.

So, I think to say "lock-downs were nearly useless" isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the study.

I'm sure you are much better informed on the subject.......after all it was only a meta study by a leading medical university.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

First, the US never locked anything down.

Second, this is at odds with lots of other studies, which of course Taj ignored because he’s a dishonest person.

Third, the ‘lockdowns’ which did happen in the US were the closures of bars and restaurants, which the paper identifies as an effective measure.

Finally, the idea that these closures caused some sort of massive economic damage is at odds with what everyone here experienced with their own two eyes.

If the closures were what caused the economic damage and not fear of the virus, why was flight traffic down over 60% despite having literally no restrictions placed on it whatsoever?

edit: school closures were a bad idea though, yes!

Tell that for the citizens that were arrested, fined and had their businesses shut down, locked up and convicted. Dishonest? You lied in your first fucking sentence .
Ohhh just "closures" how cute. First you lie and then you tap fucking dance on what a lockdown is. lol.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm sure you are much better informed on the subject.......after all it was only a meta study by a leading medical university.

Just for your sake, no one calls these a "meta study," they're referred to by the full name "meta analysis."

"Did you read the new meta analysis from Hopkins on lock downs?"

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Bingo. Flattening the curve isn't about reducing deaths as a key metric, it's about not overwhelming health care systems. See: last two years.

"last two years" You fucking joke.

 

[Pohemi]

As usual, you take a shred of info and try to shoehorn it into your existing ideology, reality and context be damned.

In short (because I suspect you've probably skipped a lot of this), this isn't the "a-ha!" moment you think it is.

It never is. Nothing is ever as he puts it forward.

I'm sure you are much better informed on the subject.......after all it was only a meta study by a leading medical university.

It's not conclusive proof lockdowns are ineffective, and the study itself has some conspicuous problems. It's a study of studies that relies on very limited data to reach some conclusions it can't really support.

He's treating a meta analysis as though it is some huge double-blind clinical trial that proves SO MUCH THINGS.

He's an imbecile or just dishonest, as usual. If it isn't outright lies, it's dishonesty by omission or misrepresentation. It never changes with him.

"last two years" You fucking joke.

Project some more.

 

[pmv]

I'm sure you are much better informed on the subject.......after all it was only a meta study by a leading medical university.

The "working paper" (which is apparently what that is) wasn't "by" the university, it was "by" the three conservative economists who complied and wrote it. Seems to be a journal associated with the "Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics", some sort of institution founded by a leading light of the Cato Institute and associated with Johns Hopkins University.

Note it itself says:

"The views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with. "

 

[pmv]

Here's the wiki entry of the guy who founded that instutite (and is also one of the three co-authors). I don't feel a lot of confidence that he's a neutral, objective analyst of the issue.

Not that that 'proves' the paper wrong, but I'd want to see someone with credentials in the field of public health that I trusted, review it before it seems like anything other than very erudite propaganda. Economists do seem to love "analysing" things out of their expertise (e.g climate change), and their conclusions always seem to mysteriously accord with their political agenda.

Steve Hanke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ivwshane]

$5 says taj the traitor, didn’t even bother reading the study himself before he posted it.

 

[cytg111]

I am sure all those that is gonna catch Omicron instead of Delta or the original variant is pretty happy with delaying the inevitable.

Taj, go see the doc, your brain tumor is acting up again.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's a meta-study, which is an analysis of other studies. The meta-study does not discuss the methodology of the studies it's analyzing in any great detail. What I want to know is how they determine how effective a lockdown is. There is no way to know how many deaths you would have had in a scenario where there had been no lockdown. They can compare a place that had lockdowns to a place that didn't have lockdowns, but that is a problem because many local/regional variables can affect COVID transmission and outcomes.

I would reserve judgment on the matter until I understand the methodologies involved.

 

[shortylickens]

Switzerland had lockdowns.
COVID spread slowly in Switzerland.
Sweden let people run around like normal.
Sweden had horrible outbreaks all thru the last two years.

Maybe the problem is Johns Hopkins.
Maybe the problem IS TAJ FUCKING MAHAL!

 

[woolfe9998]

First, the US never locked anything down.

Second, this is at odds with lots of other studies, which of course Taj ignored because he’s a dishonest person.

Third, the ‘lockdowns’ which did happen in the US were the closures of bars and restaurants, which the paper identifies as an effective measure.

Finally, the idea that these closures caused some sort of massive economic damage is at odds with what everyone here experienced with their own two eyes.

If the closures were what caused the economic damage and not fear of the virus, why was flight traffic down over 60% despite having literally no restrictions placed on it whatsoever?

edit: school closures were a bad idea though, yes!

More than one variable can contribute to an economic downturn. There is no question that fear of the virus was going to cause some economic harm. The issue is whether the lockdowns made it worse or not.