Lockdowns didn't work.

PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Here's a study from John Hopkins University:

"Conclusions Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality."
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
No.

The onus is not upon the free citizen to offer any reason at all as to why they have civil liberties. It is upon those who would infringe the free movement of the free citizen to prove that the measures were both effective and constitutional.

Otherwise the precedent has been set and there is STILL no solid proof that those measures were the least bit effective.
Click to expand...
Civil liberties are not absolute. This is where libertarian believers fail.

As for solid proof, the courses of the disease where there were and were not lockdowns group distinctly.

Do you support the mask mandate?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Civil liberties are not absolute. This is where libertarian believers fail.

As for solid proof, the courses of the disease where there were and were not lockdowns group distinctly.

Do you support the mask mandate?
Click to expand...
You have every right in the world to wear a mask. Businesses have the right to insist that patrons wear masks. Government offices have the right to enact policies as to the wearing of masks on their premises. I will likey continue wearing a mask for the foreseeabe future because I like it. I don't care if others wear a mask. If I don't like someone breathing near me, I get away from their throat, it's my prerogative.

As to the rest of your argument, I know that if you narrow the time frame, you could make it look like lockdowns had an impact but on the whole of the pandemic, they utterly failed to prevent the overloading of hospital capacity and it becomes very difficult to argue that any impact was made at all. It simply groups numbers. This has been rehashed ad nauseaum in many discussions including overall population all-cause mortality rates. The only case that can be seriousy made is in regard to the comorbid and the elderly.

You can't blame beachgoers for your grandmother's death.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Define 'work'.

Also what lockdown? Here in America idiots were not stopped from doing stupid shit like this.

Screen Shot 2022-08-16 at 1.07.46 PM.png


Businesses were closed for a couple weeks to slow the spread so that hospitals didn't get overwhelmed, but even then there were a lot that never closed, and nobody was forced to stay home here.

PJ Diaz said:
Here's a study from John Hopkins University:

"Conclusions Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality."
Click to expand...
I wonder if they looked into the hospital overloads and estimated what would have happened if they were shut down because they were overwhelmed for a while. Thankfully the vaccine has helped with that a lot.

abandonconflict said:
This is the problem with working in multiple languages. I haven't written much in English in the last two years. I used to could write better. Anyway US is as bad as China when it comes to group thinking and fear of taboo discussion.
Click to expand...
Screen Shot 2022-08-16 at 1.15.14 PM.png
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
Define 'work'.
Click to expand...
I did define it. There was no lockdown anywhere in which there is strong evidence that lockdowns had an impact on all cause mortality. If a state had a two week stay at home order in some part of 2020, you can not prove that this had an impact on the overall number of deaths over the entire course of the pandemic. Before you cry foul at this criteria, think about it for a moment. Did it save a life or not?

It's easy to say fewer deaths occured specifically to covid within a few weeks of such an order but you can not prove that they had an impact on the overall mortality. Such proof does not exist. However the reality of it is even harder to prove.

The lockdowns were meant to flatten to curve in order to prevent hospital capacity being exceeded. That was what was argued all along by local governments. They absolutely did not work as intended. But also, they didn't work at all.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
rkymtnman said:
and? denmark had more cases but less deaths. sweden had less cases and way more than 0.2% deaths. how do you explain that?
Click to expand...
Sweden having less cases vs a country half their size would imply that the lockdowns didn't work. The fact that they have double the population, less cases, and 3x the death could indicate many different possibilities, however I haven't studied the differences between the two country's enough to speculate at all on that. I would imagine that the folks who did the study for John Hopkins University were thorough however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top