Leftist media ignores Johns Hopkins study proving that lockdowns were ineffective
Unrestricted warfare against a free people. (The Donald/Patriots dot Win)
Johns Hopkins researchers conducted an analysis on studies focusing on the lockdowns during the first wave of COVID-19. What they found was that these lockdowns reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the United States and in Europe. This apparently was statistically insignificant and could not be used to claim that these lockdowns “worked”.
From Fox News:
“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the researchers wrote. “In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as “superspreaders.”
It wasn’t just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.
The researchers — Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen’s Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby — analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.
“We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%.
Fox News address is more of what the study found at this article.
Category: COVID-19
Can I sue?
Inconvenient truths be inconvenient and sh!t.
Hey, at least we kept those with one foot in the grave alive while destroying small businesses, wrecking small landlords, backlogged student debts, shuttered restaurants/bars, led a whole generation into mental illness, drug abuse, violence, allowed the uniparty to erode the last little bit of faith the citizen had in election integrity, saddled future generations with untold amounts of debt, bifurcated communities into mutually exclusive camps, gave the non-elected bureaucratic state even more unearned, unaccountable power, ruined the medical industry, shot up millions of people with an experimental elixir with no liability to the manufacturers, ruined tv, movies, music, the written word, made censorship acceptable again, caused inflation this nation hasn’t seen in two generations…
But hey, my gun maker stocks and real estate, bond shorts are paying.
I didn’t start the fire…
EXACTLY. But we knew this already and screamed loudly at our “leaders” to wake the fuck up.
The leftist media is simply awaiting to be issued their daily talking points from the DNC.
And communists china
Remember they donate more money
Directly and indirectly to the DNC
then any other
As soon as Xi tells the DNC and Joe what to say, they’ll say it. Not until then.
While I agree with their conclusions these type studies don’t actually “prove” things. It’s merely their interpretation of some data sets.
No, it’s not an interpretation. It is a meta-analysis, quantitative and correlational. To minimize the conclusion by saying it doesn’t actually “prove” something is ridiculous, particularly since the result of the meta-analysis “proves” the lockdowns not only did not work, they did more harm than good.
Did you mean to infer the original research was flawed in some inherent way and therefore any conclusions or suppositions are suspect at best? IIRC, you’ve been quite supportive of the draconian measures now “proven” pointless, so you throw out some pseudo-intellectual crap about “proof”?
You do not recall correctly. I never supported lockdowns.
I stand corrected on that
Of course the Libs and Lame stream media don’t like it. It doesn’t meet their agenda for their fellow socialists to keep us under their power and control.
Your covid passport, please!
Dude, it’s a cold now– where’ve you been?
https://collections.ushmm.org/iiif-b/assets/731082
IT’S TEH COVID PEOPLE!! MY EMPIRIC DATA SHOWS THAT IT WILL KILL!!! MASK UP AND QUARANTINE FOR 14 MORE WEEKS!!! TAKE THE JAB AS OFTEN AS YOU CAN GET IT!!
FAUCI IS MY GOD AND “THE SCIENCE” IS MY BIBLE!!!!
Welp, they didn’t control the Chinese Communist Originated Virus Infecting Disease of 2019 very well with their lockdowns, but they surely showed how they could control a large number of “We, The People”.
Shorely will be glad when them “14 days to flatten the curve” are over.