imported_tajmahal
Lifer
Johns Hopkins disagrees with you. Guess, just guess who i'll trust, you or the study?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hopkins meta study show Covid lock downs nearly useless
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
A closer look at the Johns Hopkins lockdown study
On Thursday, February 3, American Experiment reported on a new study by economists at Johns Hopkins University that finds the body of empirical evidence shows lockdowns had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.” That’s obviously a big deal and a big story. It runs directly counter to the...
www.americanexperiment.org
"
A solid methodology
The study rests on a solid methodology that follows a traditional meta-analysis framework. It begins with a systematic search that identified 18,590 studies and then screened those studies based on the strength of how the study established a relationship between lockdowns and mortality.
The “difference-in-difference” criteria they use focuses on studies that measure the difference in how mortality changed after the fact compared to a control group (i.e., a geographical region that did not lockdown in the same way). This offers the best measure of what actually happened. Thus, they excluded studies that involved before-and-after comparisons, simulations, and counterfactuals based on modeled forecasts. Ultimately, this process winnowed the number of studies that qualified to be included in the meta-analysis to 24.
Each of the studies was then separated into three groups. The first group assessed effectiveness based on a lockdown stringency index of Oxford University that measures the strength of the lockdown across nine parameters, such as closing schools, stay at home requirements, and travel bans. The second group included studies on the effectiveness of shelter-in place orders and the third included studies of specific orders.
When evaluating the studies, the authors considered 4 quality dimensions. First, peer-reviewed studies were considered higher quality than working papers. Second, studies assessing longer periods that ended after May 31, 2020 were considered higher quality because they covered the first wave more fully. Third, because about 3 weeks passes between infection and death, studies that identified an early effect on mortality sooner than 14 days after the lockdown policies began were considered lower quality. Fourth, social science studies were considered higher quality than natural science studies because socialist scientists have more expertise in evaluating policy interventions.
Results show little to no effect on mortality"
It's the science.
shortylickens
No Lifer
As with everything else you've pushed over the last few years: You will support whatever study confirms your already held beliefs, even when there's 200 studies contradicting it.
If you weren't such a coward you could change your beliefs when you acquire new information. That doesn't bother me.
What really bothers me is that the fearful people in America eventually turn to violence as opposed to dealing with their issues internally.
zinfamous
No Lifer
That isn't science. None of it is. It won't pass peer review, which is why these hack publications are pushing it right now. Your fucking shit brain doesn't care, and will only remember that some fringe anti-journalists published this garbage, despite it's complete lack of sound modeling.
You're pushing a fake, dangerous narrative that is designed only to harm people. You are doing this on purpose.
Just go swallow one of your grenades already. Everything is lost on you.
You keep falsely claiming this study is by "Johns Hopkins" (at least you got the name of the university right this time). It's not, it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that it's by three right-wing economists and from the "Johns Hopkins Institute of Applied Economics" - a joint venture with the Krieger school.
I notice on the sourcewatch site it mentions that institute got $10,000 from the Koch Brothers. That's not a large amount by their standards, it's true, but I am curious where the funding to create and sustain this 'institute' (set up by one of the authors of this paper, the Cato guy) came from.
In general I think it's shameful the way universities prostitute themselves for cash from rich donors, by allowing their names to be associated with "Institutes" funded by such donors. It's an odd coincidence how the "research" from such institutes always seems to produce "findings" that fit with the ideology and self-interest of the donors.
Last edited:
It’s unclear to me why you think quoting a right wing propaganda site that does nothing to address the actual criticisms of the study helps you. If anything it just reminds us of how poor your sources are.A closer look at the Johns Hopkins lockdown study
On Thursday, February 3, American Experiment reported on a new study by economists at Johns Hopkins University that finds the body of empirical evidence shows lockdowns had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.” That’s obviously a big deal and a big story. It runs directly counter to the...
"
A solid methodology
The study rests on a solid methodology that follows a traditional meta-analysis framework. It begins with a systematic search that identified 18,590 studies and then screened those studies based on the strength of how the study established a relationship between lockdowns and mortality.
The “difference-in-difference” criteria they use focuses on studies that measure the difference in how mortality changed after the fact compared to a control group (i.e., a geographical region that did not lockdown in the same way). This offers the best measure of what actually happened. Thus, they excluded studies that involved before-and-after comparisons, simulations, and counterfactuals based on modeled forecasts. Ultimately, this process winnowed the number of studies that qualified to be included in the meta-analysis to 24.
Each of the studies was then separated into three groups. The first group assessed effectiveness based on a lockdown stringency index of Oxford University that measures the strength of the lockdown across nine parameters, such as closing schools, stay at home requirements, and travel bans. The second group included studies on the effectiveness of shelter-in place orders and the third included studies of specific orders.
When evaluating the studies, the authors considered 4 quality dimensions. First, peer-reviewed studies were considered higher quality than working papers. Second, studies assessing longer periods that ended after May 31, 2020 were considered higher quality because they covered the first wave more fully. Third, because about 3 weeks passes between infection and death, studies that identified an early effect on mortality sooner than 14 days after the lockdown policies began were considered lower quality. Fourth, social science studies were considered higher quality than natural science studies because socialist scientists have more expertise in evaluating policy interventions.
Results show little to no effect on mortality"
It's the science.
I think my favorite part is where it questions the motivations of people saying the study is crap by noting they have long supported various interventions but never notes the identical opposite fact for the authors of this working paper.
zinfamous
No Lifer
The defense he posted is just a defense of meta studies, and spends its time explaining meta studies. It doesn't really address the spurious publication in question, and absolutely doesn't address the multiple (pretty much intentional) flaws in its statistics that were used to massage the data and replace the results from the original, peer-reviewed articles.
Of course, Taj won't address this. He's illiterate.
What this study from the Cato institute really achieves, is that the named authors will probably go up for academic review, because this could be considered a breach of ethics.
He’s not illiterate, he’s just a liar. I was wrong in thinking he would be too ashamed to return to this thread but I was right in predicting he would admit no errors.
He knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he doesn’t care.
I'm seeing this 'paper' being cited all over-the-place now. Anti-lockdown conservatives (and just general crazies) keep citing it with comments like "the data is in, and it proves lockdowns don''t work".
Personally, I'm starting to lose faith in the whole domain of academia - the sheer number of politically-motivated dodgy "papers" that appear, and the sheer-number of people with genuine credentials and track-records, who turn out to be crazies, is disturbing me. It's hard to know who to believe or trust. It feels as if the academic world is fatally contaminated with money and ideology now (in good part thanks to the Koch brothers).
The recent anti-vax attack on Keir Starmer (by far right anti-vaxxers mixed in with child-traficking-conspiracy theorists, Q-anon-adjacent I guess) were apparently associated with a group which includes this guy, who I'd never previously heard of. The contrast between his credentials (a PhD and a career working as a very senior scientist for Pfizer) and the stuff he now comes out with, is quite disturbing.
en.wikipedia.org
Personally, I'm starting to lose faith in the whole domain of academia - the sheer number of politically-motivated dodgy "papers" that appear, and the sheer-number of people with genuine credentials and track-records, who turn out to be crazies, is disturbing me. It's hard to know who to believe or trust. It feels as if the academic world is fatally contaminated with money and ideology now (in good part thanks to the Koch brothers).
The recent anti-vax attack on Keir Starmer (by far right anti-vaxxers mixed in with child-traficking-conspiracy theorists, Q-anon-adjacent I guess) were apparently associated with a group which includes this guy, who I'd never previously heard of. The contrast between his credentials (a PhD and a career working as a very senior scientist for Pfizer) and the stuff he now comes out with, is quite disturbing.
Michael Yeadon - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
zinfamous
No Lifer
To me it's illiteracy. It always is.
If you fail at critical thinking, meaning you failed education beyond the standard 12th grade (Standard 3 decades ago), and don't know how to understand what you see, what you read, what it means, apply it in context, you are illiterate. It's just plain and simple.
Today, there is absolutely no excuse for being unable to simply "read." This isn't the Bronze age--though obviously many of us are enamored by this era of human civilization and want to return to it--so illiterate really has a different definition today. It has for a very, very, very long time.
It's not "can I read." It is is "What does reading mean? How do I read?"
You can't be a conservative and be literate today. That's the entire point of the GOP assault on education since the 70s. There is no other explanation. You simply can not stop humans from being able to read these days. It is fundamentally impossible. You can, however, impede their ability to contextualize and think, and process, the information that they are reading. And it's very easy: these things are hard, and conservative brains fucking hate work. They hate challenge. They hate critical thinking. Any work that must engage them in challenging pre-conceived, childish lies planted into their brains that make them comfortable, is absolutely forbidden. This is why they hate science and why every one of them pays $$$ for other people to write papers for them so that they can pretend to get through college. I attended enough classes with these fucking mushhead simpletons in my day. They just utterly refuse to think for more than 5 seconds. The effort makes their fucking faces red and you can identify them in any crowd.
They are all illiterate, because they choose it. Because it's easy, and it is the bromide that they all demand from the painful world that only they create.
Brings to mind this
Science Confirms: Politics Wrecks Your Ability to Do Math
Farewell, Enlightenment: New research suggests that people even solve math problems differently if their political ideology is at stake.
www.motherjones.com
(Though it's a psychology study and, ironically, personally I'm almost as distrustful of psychology as I am of economics)
Commodus
Diamond Member
I would clarify: you can't espouse modern conservatism and be literate on this level. Critics like David Frum, as well as some 'classic' conservatives I've talked to (i.e. more fiscal than social), are decidedly literate. It's people like Taj, the ones who treat politics like a childish game and value party over country at all costs, that are functionally illiterate.
Guys he’s not illiterate, he’s just a liar.
JTsyo
Lifer
SMOGZINN
Lifer
The entire study does not even pass the sniff test. Viruses are not magic. We pretty much know how they are transmitted. So unless you can show me some theory that explains how viruses can travel long distances all on their own then stopping people from moving about stops the virus from moving about. It is really that simple. The only thing this study might be able to show is that a large number of people didn't comply with lockdown restrictions, or that the restrictions we put in place were not strong enough.
Could they ever be strong enough? There are basic everyday things that have to happen or our society collapses. Pretty much every job that requires labor is necessary, along with anything that requires a stationary engineer. Police and emergency services are a big item as well.
Well they aren't about ending transmission of the virus, only reducing it. Closures of bars and restaurants made perfect sense as they are places where people gather in large groups to breathe in each other's faces for hours at a time, and they are recreational spaces that are not necessary for society to function.
I do think it's revealing as to who the twitter crowd is though where you commonly hear people say 'just pay everyone to stay home for a month'. Like, if everyone stays home where is the food coming from? Who is fighting fires? The large majority of workers can't stay home because as you say, their job requires them to go somewhere and do something.
This is the example of the inflexible all or nothing thinking that complicates Covid response. Same thing with mask wearing and vaccination.
Nothing is 100% effective, and information can change as more is learned about the virus. There are also always those who are simply unwilling to comply. That does not mean, however, that we should not institute preventative measures that are at least partially effective.
Most people never think about the folks that make the world work day in day out. Though with the truck driver shortage a lot are figuring it out.
I went looking for comparison numbers of states that are partially shut down against states that are open. I didn't come across any that weren't grinding an ax. I wanted to avoid using CDC numbers and a spread sheet because I'm lazy. Perhaps I just need to dig deeper.
I knew the JH study was going to be nothing but a shit storm. Hailed as the new ten commandments by the right, and decried as the worst sort of pseudo science by the left. It's sad that there doesn't seem to be any rational discussion anymore.
I think there's a good amount of rational discussion about the study and it seems to be empirically very bad. There are numerous aspects to it that do not seem even remotely defensible from a scientific standpoint - most importantly its central definition of what it attempted to measure, a 'lockdown', which is fundamentally at odds with the dictionary definition and in a way that dramatically alters the findings.
That's the essence of a multi pronged solution, and generally a very good idea. But at some point along the way, the benefit has to be measured. The simple answer when dealing with lives is that if it saves a single one it's worth it. But the reality is that we accept that our way of life is going to kill people. The problem I see is that with covid, it's become become political. That's the point of failure. This very thread is the evidence of that. Is the JH study junk science or is it valid? Why is it that the discussion is so adversarial?
SMOGZINN
Lifer
I started to write a reply earlier about how little of a lockdown we actually did. It is not about stopping everyone from doing anything, it is mostly about stopping large groups of people from congregating. And we didn't do that.
Well, it literally is the worst sort of pseudo-science. It did not follow any sort of rigorous scientific method. It started from a conclusion and went out looking for evidence to support it, all while rejecting any evidence that didn't. It can actively harm people by convincing them to ignore public safety regulations. It just tells people something they want to hear without it having to be true.
It is also worth noting that John Hopkins University does not endorse the study, did not fund the study, did not publish the study, and two of the three authors have no connection to the University. It seems disingenuous to keep calling it 'The John Hopkins Study'.
I think the problem here is that because covid has become political there's a motivation to create junk science to support right wing opinion on covid, and there's an incentive by conservatives to pretend it's not junk science.
If someone comes out with an empirically rigorous study that says business closures, etc. don't work that's fine by me. I personally think that essentially all covid restrictions should end at this time. You don't get there by pretending the UK having compulsory 5 day quarantine for people who test positive for COVID means the entire country has been in 'lockdown' for two years.
If someone comes out with an empirically rigorous study that says business closures, etc. don't work that's fine by me. I personally think that essentially all covid restrictions should end at this time. You don't get there by pretending the UK having compulsory 5 day quarantine for people who test positive for COVID means the entire country has been in 'lockdown' for two years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-