How many threads you going to post the same shitty study in just to get slapped over and over about how its a shitty study?The small benefit from lockdowns wasn't worth the cost.
Johns Hopkins Study: Lockdowns Only Reduce Mortality by 0.2 Percent | Mises Institute
That something "works" isn't a license for a regime to do whatever it wants. But given that lockdowns don't even work—and are morally repugnant—how can they bemises.org
How Much Evidence Is Required to Abolish Your Rights?
"
The all also reflects a monomaniacal technocratic obsession with justifying anything and everything so long as it can be shown to "work." But, even if lockdowns worked, this wouldn't excuse the fact that lockdowns are premised on imposing widespread human rights violations on the population at large. Lockdowns deny the right to seek employment, the right to travel, and the basic right to contract for services. That something "works" isn't a license for a regime to do whatever it wants. After all, many Asian regimes no doubt believe that the widespread use of the death penalty for drug offenses "works." Similarly, it may be that torture "works" to extract information from suspected terrorists—although data shows it doesn't. The "success" of torture would not be sufficient to justify its use, and a healthy respect for human rights suggests such practices are unacceptable.
Advocates of lockdowns will argue that having one's livelihood confiscated by health officials is not on the same level as execution or torture. Even if that's true we must ask exactly how much evidence lockdown advocates require before they are willing to violate your rights in the name of "doing what works." The answer apparently is "not much." In a sane society, the burden of proof always falls on those who want to increase state power. Predictably, however, the lockdowners insisted there was no time to worry about evidence for their radical new scheme. And once they had the power, they refused to accept any expiration dates or other limits to their power. This is why they're constantly moving the goalposts, changing time horizons, and generally insisting that any opposition is tantamount to "killing grandma." But it is only becoming increasingly clear that they've never been pursuing what works. They've only managed to increase their own power at great cost to many. "
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
Bill Maher was making fun of the lockdowns, and siding with the Hopkins study.
Over-reactions. Not-necessary. A-waste. Typical-gut-reaction.
Bill just doesn't get it. And lately, Bill has sided with republicans on masks and vaccines and the likes. With criticizing democrats more than republicans.
So... I wondered WHY Bill? WHY?
Then I figured it out from previous statements from Bill as of late.
You see, Bill Maher is pissed. Bill is pissed that taking covid precautions has cost Bill Maher $$$ MONEY.
Bill himself was bitching that several of his stand-up live shows had been canceled because of Covid and more so the current more contagious Omicron.
Seems being safe has cost Bill money with cancelations of his in-person appearances.
WOW!
You see, even with radical left wing liberals, it all comes down to THE MONEY. THEIR MONEY.
Over-reactions. Not-necessary. A-waste. Typical-gut-reaction.
Bill just doesn't get it. And lately, Bill has sided with republicans on masks and vaccines and the likes. With criticizing democrats more than republicans.
So... I wondered WHY Bill? WHY?
Then I figured it out from previous statements from Bill as of late.
You see, Bill Maher is pissed. Bill is pissed that taking covid precautions has cost Bill Maher $$$ MONEY.
Bill himself was bitching that several of his stand-up live shows had been canceled because of Covid and more so the current more contagious Omicron.
Seems being safe has cost Bill money with cancelations of his in-person appearances.
WOW!
You see, even with radical left wing liberals, it all comes down to THE MONEY. THEIR MONEY.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,503
- 20,106
- 146
Yeah, so this "study" (actually a non-peer reviewed "working paper" by a politically motivated economist) has been snoped. And so far... it ain't pretty
www.snopes.com
Highlights:
The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process.
This opening paragraph contains one other important detail. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a “Johns Hopkins study,” this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Furthermore, the National Post noted that this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Rather, it comes from the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences:
This work was conducted by three economists, not epidemiologists: Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke. It’s worth noting that Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, was at the center of a brief controversy in June 2020 after he erroneously claimed that Vietnam had not reported any COVID-19 data. An open letter from 285 “public health researchers and professionals and concerned citizens” to Johns Hopkins University demanded an apology from Hanke and claimed that his tweet was “more politically driven than evidence based.” Hanke later deleted the tweet.
While we can’t say if Hanke’s political opinions influenced the conclusions of this working paper, he has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism.
Dr. Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, said (emphasis ours):
Furthermore, nearly half of the studies analyzed (16 of 34) were published in 2020. The most recent study comes from June 2021, meaning that this meta-analysis contains little to no data related to the delta variant, and no data related to omicron.
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:
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
www.snopes.com
Highlights:
The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process.
This opening paragraph contains one other important detail. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a “Johns Hopkins study,” this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Furthermore, the National Post noted that this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Rather, it comes from the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences:
This work was conducted by three economists, not epidemiologists: Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke. It’s worth noting that Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, was at the center of a brief controversy in June 2020 after he erroneously claimed that Vietnam had not reported any COVID-19 data. An open letter from 285 “public health researchers and professionals and concerned citizens” to Johns Hopkins University demanded an apology from Hanke and claimed that his tweet was “more politically driven than evidence based.” Hanke later deleted the tweet.
While we can’t say if Hanke’s political opinions influenced the conclusions of this working paper, he has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism.
Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, also found this definition of a lockdown problematic:
Another point of concern is that 12 of the 34 studies analyzed in this review were, themselves, working papers. The analysis of 34 included 14 in the field of economics and only one in epidemiology.
Dr. Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, said (emphasis ours):
In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.
Furthermore, nearly half of the studies analyzed (16 of 34) were published in 2020. The most recent study comes from June 2021, meaning that this meta-analysis contains little to no data related to the delta variant, and no data related to omicron.
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:
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
SO
MUCH
SELF-OWNAGE
Never stop tajjing, tajjy. You're a font of endless ignorance
MUCH
SELF-OWNAGE
Never stop tajjing, tajjy. You're a font of endless ignorance
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,568
- 13,243
- 136
What's funny is I just saw a news headline about "John Hopkins study...." And I knew the website was referencing this exact study to peddle bullshit.
Because it's not from JHU, just economists (at that) who happen to teach at the university
Because it's not from JHU, just economists (at that) who happen to teach at the university
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,628
- 48,195
- 136
If Taj ever returns to this thread, and he probably will not, he will claim that all of these problems with the study just stem from our political dislike of the findings.
When I heard this I thought it had to be a joke. Someone went out to prove that ordering a lockdown and isolating people so they can't spread a virus won't prevent deaths? 
Holy Batman.
This said it best: Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission.
A good breakdown of the "Hopkins study" and we shouldn't be calling it that.
www.snopes.com
Holy Batman. This said it best: Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission.
A good breakdown of the "Hopkins study" and we shouldn't be calling it that.
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
www.snopes.com
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,759
- 2,086
- 136
An obvious UCLA dumbass.
Read the Johns Hopkins study, it disagrees with you.
Hmmm whom do i trust ? A dimwit UCLA bruin or a Johns Hopkins metastudy ? I'll take Johns Hopkins Alex.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,759
- 2,086
- 136
Scarpozzi
Lifer
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,392
- 1,780
- 126
Yep. It's crazy that after this whole time we still have idiots that didn't get the message. They don't understand that all the people infected with covid clog up the system and every other chronic condition has to suffer because people can't get service.
Of course, these problems are worse in large metropolitan areas and extreme rural areas where the balance of potential patients vs capacity can't allow for crazy swings. I live in a medium sized city and we weathered the waves pretty well here, even though the idiots around here won't vaccinate and want to mate with Trump. One of the high school football coaches in my town lost his wife to covid a few weeks back because she found a quack gynocologist to prescribe ivermectin. By the time she got to a real doctor, she was ready for the ventilator.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,725
- 17,366
- 136
This goes to show how far gone this piece of Shit traitor is. Several people took the time to not only read the meta study but to also give a thorough breakdown of what was wrong with the “meta study”. The traitors response? He completely ignored the posts.
This is why trying to have a rational discussion with these cult members is pointless, they can’t handle the truth nor do they want the truth or seek the truth. All they care about is repeating the talking points they get from their bubble of misinformation.
I would like to thank those that tried to engage with this traitor though, your rebut was rather thorough and for those that actually care about factual information you did a real service by thoughtfully laying out the issues with this study.
I will add that this study has already started spreading and even “lefties” like Bill Maher are regurgitating it’s talking points uncritically.
Last edited:
Lanyap
Elite Member
- Dec 23, 2000
- 8,296
- 2,391
- 136
Yeah, so this "study" (actually a non-peer reviewed "working paper" by a politically motivated economist) has been snoped. And so far... it ain't pretty
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
Highlights:
The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process.
This opening paragraph contains one other important detail. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a “Johns Hopkins study,” this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Furthermore, the National Post noted that this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Rather, it comes from the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences:
This work was conducted by three economists, not epidemiologists: Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke. It’s worth noting that Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, was at the center of a brief controversy in June 2020 after he erroneously claimed that Vietnam had not reported any COVID-19 data. An open letter from 285 “public health researchers and professionals and concerned citizens” to Johns Hopkins University demanded an apology from Hanke and claimed that his tweet was “more politically driven than evidence based.” Hanke later deleted the tweet.
While we can’t say if Hanke’s political opinions influenced the conclusions of this working paper, he has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism.
Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, also found this definition of a lockdown problematic:
Another point of concern is that 12 of the 34 studies analyzed in this review were, themselves, working papers. The analysis of 34 included 14 in the field of economics and only one in epidemiology.
Dr. Seth Flaxman, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, said (emphasis ours):
In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.
Furthermore, nearly half of the studies analyzed (16 of 34) were published in 2020. The most recent study comes from June 2021, meaning that this meta-analysis contains little to no data related to the delta variant, and no data related to omicron.
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:
View attachment 57004
Well, this was unexpected.
Conservatives always get caught with shit like this.
Except it wasn't a John Hopkins study.
Can't really blame him, he's trying very hard to unironically use the "appeal to authority" fallacy and is just spittin' mad we're not biting.
Kinda sums up the tribal mentality. "But I used your fancy experts you HAVE to believe me!"
Yea, I have seem that article, but not read it in detail. The weakness of such studies to me seems the lack of a "control group". In the early stages, nearly everyone was locked down, so I dont know how one would determine how many Covid deaths would have occurred if there was no lockdown.
I think the larger problem is by their definition essentially every developed country has been in a continuous state of ‘lockdown’ from March 2020 to present. They defined the word so broadly it lost all meaning.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,759
- 2,086
- 136
The research is in and lockdowns don't work
Unless by 'work' you mean stagnating the economy while doing little to slow the spread. A new paper exposes the reality of lockdowns.
spectatorworld.com
"The review looked at 34 different studies analyzing business and school closings, shelter-in-place orders, and international travel bans. It included data from US and European Covid mitigation efforts, along with endeavors in India, South Africa and China. Almost two dozen of these studies were peer-reviewed, while the other 12 were working papers. "
34 studies, only 12 working papers.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,725
- 17,366
- 136
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
SIri, show me the absolute definition of 'stuck on stupid'The research is in and lockdowns don't work
Unless by 'work' you mean stagnating the economy while doing little to slow the spread. A new paper exposes the reality of lockdowns.
"The review looked at 34 different studies analyzing business and school closings, shelter-in-place orders, and international travel bans. It included data from US and European Covid mitigation efforts, along with endeavors in India, South Africa and China. Almost two dozen of these studies were peer-reviewed, while the other 12 were working papers. "
34 studies, only 12 working papers.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
you're a lying sack of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.
This isn't a Johns Hopkins study.
It is a bunch of sociopathic arch conservative economists massaging data around a conclusion just like you try to massage grenades around babies, you fuckin cvnt.
Any post you make in this thread without acknowledging your misrepresentation of the public health crisis by lionizing this incredibly dangerous, inaccurate, and purely political assault on science, is a waste of everyone's time.
You need to apologize for lying.
You're only goal here is to keep killing people, and you are a piece of shit.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
The research is in and lockdowns don't work
Unless by 'work' you mean stagnating the economy while doing little to slow the spread. A new paper exposes the reality of lockdowns.
"The review looked at 34 different studies analyzing business and school closings, shelter-in-place orders, and international travel bans. It included data from US and European Covid mitigation efforts, along with endeavors in India, South Africa and China. Almost two dozen of these studies were peer-reviewed, while the other 12 were working papers. "
34 studies, only 12 working papers.
nope. you're lying. You are shit-pasting the same repeated horseshit from dozens of conservative forums and chatrooms, without any fucking understanding of what you are reading. Your craven stupidity is what makes you dangerous to humanity.
You have gotten replies from a scientist in the field, an article from several scientist and been shown that not even the people in the study that this working article is based on agrees with it at all and yet you persist.
I could add my own expertise but it wouldn't change anything. Others have already detailed why this is not a valid working article at all and I have nothing to add to that but agreement.
However, I do have to add that this ... disease of wilful ignorance where you are abjectly incapable of accepting better evidence will forever lead to you being ignorant on every topic and that is just downright saddening.
What is worse is that you are not alone, wilful ignorance cannot be educated away as ignorance can be because it's wilful. You willingly cling to lies and dismiss truths. Unfortunately that is spreading a lot not just in the US (even though the US is particularly affected) but also among people in Europe, specifically Eastern Europe but also the UK.
The research is in and lockdowns don't work
Unless by 'work' you mean stagnating the economy while doing little to slow the spread. A new paper exposes the reality of lockdowns.
"The review looked at 34 different studies analyzing business and school closings, shelter-in-place orders, and international travel bans. It included data from US and European Covid mitigation efforts, along with endeavors in India, South Africa and China. Almost two dozen of these studies were peer-reviewed, while the other 12 were working papers. "
34 studies, only 12 working papers.
This is insane... Not a single one of these studies support the conclusion. I mean it's just made up bullshit. Just completely made UP.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter