Johns Hopkins study says lockdowns did more harm than good

suds00 said:
people have been quarantined for infectious diseases for years .lockdowns are effective tools to stop the spread of disease. i've been here 72 years and see the benefits of lockdowns. we don't want viruses to run rampant through the populace.
Click to expand...
Lockdowns didn't help during Covid; more cases were reported during the lockdown than after it.
 
win231 said:
Lockdowns didn't help during Covid; more cases were reported during the lockdown than after it.
Click to expand...
The US didn't have true lockdowns. Parts of China absolutely did. Same with at least parts of Italy. Some other countries, too. I'm talking law enforcement on the corners stopping people from walking their dogs type lockdowns.

But the US? Not hardly. We were "lockdown light" even at our strictest, and many states didn't follow those guidelines. Never were Americans restricted from walking our neighborhoods, driving anywhere we chose, going to stores that sold food (convenience stores included) or medicine, and pretty quickly we were able to get take-out food and beverages (including alcohol).

Domestic air travel continued, though few took advantage. Large gatherings were supposed to stop, but many areas didn't follow those guidelines (Sturgis and the Ozarks come immediately to mind).

A fairer look at how well lockdowns work against virus spread and mortality rates would have included Italy and China, where actual lockdowns occurred. Also AU and NZ, where their borders were locked down against those who might have brought it in.

Before anyone jumps on me, please understand I'm not suggesting it would have been appropriate or workable for the US to have gone into serious lockdown mode. I'm merely pointing out that we did not.
 
I question this because there is no way to know how many deaths would have occurred without a lockdown. Cannot prove a negative. It's merely an opinion. To me the biggest loss that may never be corrected is that of a good foundation for education that many elementary school children will not have.
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
From the horse's mouth...

Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.

As has happened so many times... working papers are published to be peer reviewed, but are considered as fact, by whichever party deeming it beneficial to their cause.

This working paper is more about timing of shutdowns upon mortality rates, or were the barn doors shut after the horses escaped?


And finally...

Of course there is picking and choosing which tidbits to publish in the media, but I leave you with this one tidbit from the working paper... to sip on.
Click to expand...
Harry Le Hermit said:
From the horse's mouth...

Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.

As has happened so many times... working papers are published to be peer reviewed, but are considered as fact, by whichever party deeming it beneficial to their cause.

This working paper is more about timing of shutdowns upon mortality rates, or were the barn doors shut after the horses escaped?


And finally...

Of course there is picking and choosing which tidbits to publish in the media, but I leave you with this one tidbit from the working paper... to sip on.
Click to expand...
Hermit, I am sorry, no offence, but I do not understand your post.
Maybe one succinct paragraph? Thank you.
.
 
StarSong said:
The US didn't have true lockdowns. Parts of China absolutely did. Same with at least parts of Italy. Some other countries, too. I'm talking law enforcement on the corners stopping people from walking their dogs type lockdowns.

But the US? Not hardly. We were "lockdown light" even at our strictest, and many states didn't follow those guidelines. Never were Americans restricted from walking our neighborhoods, driving anywhere we chose, going to stores that sold food (convenience stores included) or medicine, and pretty quickly we were able to get take-out food and beverages (including alcohol).

Domestic air travel continued, though few took advantage. Large gatherings were supposed to stop, but many areas didn't follow those guidelines (Sturgis and the Ozarks come immediately to mind).

A fairer look at how well lockdowns work against virus spread and mortality rates would have included Italy and China, where actual lockdowns occurred. Also AU and NZ, where their borders were locked down against those who might have brought it in.

Before anyone jumps on me, please understand I'm not suggesting it would have been appropriate or workable for the US to have gone into serious lockdown mode. I'm merely pointing out that we did not.
Click to expand...
,,,and Australia and NZ still have closed borders.
Good post StarSong!
 
StarSong said:
Before anyone jumps on me, please understand I'm not suggesting it would have been appropriate or workable for the US to have gone into serious lockdown mode. I'm merely pointing out that we did not.
Click to expand...

I, too, haven't seen any evidence of a "lockdown" here, in the middle of the country. Earlier in this pandemic, there were a lot of stores that required a mask for entry, but that has been pretty well relaxed since a major share of our locals have been vaccinated. Perhaps the Most disruptive local result of this virus has been the erratic operations of the schools....parents often don't know from week to week what their kids will be having to do.

But, then, we live in a rural area, where there are virtually No crowds of people gathered together. Earlier in this pandemic, there were some restrictions in the larger cities....but nothing approaching the lockdowns reported in other nations.

Probably the closest we have had to a "lockdown" is the mandatory wearing of a mask at the casino.
 
helenbacque said:
I question this because there is no way to know how many deaths would have occurred without a lockdown.
Click to expand...
If you read the full study, not the news story, you will see they were pretty careful to compare death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns to places that did not.

The main conclusion was that the government mandates did not seem to make much difference. They suggest that was at least in part to the voluntary actions people were taking without government requirements.

A somewhat limited conclusion, but not one that surprises me. People protect themselves because they want to stay safe and not get sick. Government mandates are only a secondary driver.
 
Alligatorob said:
If you read the full study, not the news story, you will see they were pretty careful to compare death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns to places that did not.

The main conclusion was that the government mandates did not seem to make much difference. They suggest that was at least in part to the voluntary actions people were taking without government requirements.

A somewhat limited conclusion, but not one that surprises me. People protect themselves because they want to stay safe and not get sick. Government mandates are only a secondary driver.
Click to expand...
We shall have to agree to disagree. There is no provable point for something that did not happen. It is someone's educated guess, nothing more. Guesses spoken as fact are misleading.
 
helenbacque said:
We shall have to agree to disagree. There is no provable point for something that did not happen. It is someone's educated guess, nothing more. Guesses spoken as fact are misleading.
Click to expand...
What the study shows is that statistically there is very little difference in reported Covid death rates in places that had government mandated lockdowns as compared to places that didn't. Lots of good data to support that conclusion, not a guess.

The guessing was with respect to the reasons for it, and the authors offered some opinions as to what it means with respect to public policy. If they reduce this to something subject to peer review I suspect those opinions would have to come out.

I think the authors were mostly careful in what they said. Its a long read 60+ pages, but its all there. I would skip the news article originally cited summarizing the study.

Here is a link to the full study:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
 
i read some of the report and still question some of the findings.in totalitarian countries where lockdowns were mandated there was significant amount of disease but less disease than the united states where lockdowns were not as strictly enforced. what would the disease level be if lockdowns were haphazardly adhered to?.it is an interesting study. regarding the question of whether the school of economics should be releasing a study re. a medical issue, the authors note that they are social scientists and state that they are as qualified to make these findings as medically-trained scientists because of their rigorous attention to the findings.
 
suds00 said:
i read some of the report and still question some of the findings.in totalitarian countries where lockdowns were mandated there was significant amount of disease but less disease than the united states where lockdowns were not as strictly enforced. what would the disease level be if lockdowns were haphazardly adhered to?.it is an interesting study. regarding the question of whether the school of economics should be releasing a study re. a medical issue, the authors note that they are social scientists and state that they are as qualified to make these findings as medically-trained scientists because of their rigorous attention to the findings.
Click to expand...

Social scientist is just a fancy name for someone who studied econmics. Nothing to do with medical science, so therefore their findings would only be important post covid.
 
CarolfromTX said:
Think of all the missed cancer screenings, cancelled elective surgeries like hip replacements, and lost jobs..As I said, more harm than anything else. It did, however, increase the power of some politicians.
Click to expand...
Lanny said:
and wiped out countless small businesses, concentrating economic power at the top.
Click to expand...
These are quite valid points, however there were some benefits as well.

It is truly unfortunate that we did not have a reasoned and open discussion of costs and benefits back when all this started. I know we did not have all the information then that we do now, but we had enough to layout the choices regarding lockdowns and related restrictions much more clearly than it was.

If we had done that I think policy decisions would have been more rational and consistent. I believe that would have lead to broader public acceptance and cooperation. Not perfect, but better...
 
Becky1951 said:
Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?

The emotional damage should be included also.

Families separated. šŸ˜„

Children basically treated like yo-yo's, in school learning this week, oops virtual learning next week, OK, in school learning, nope, sorry, virtual learning.
Click to expand...
Yes, in Canada, suicides were up, consumption of alcoholic drinks up, spouse abuse up, pornography on internet up, isolation of people up, illegal drug use up. Makes a country "boy" like me just scratch my head!
 
If saving 1000's of people from dying and contracting virus then lockdown didn't work, !!:rolleyes:
It certainly worked in New Zealand we had some of the strictest conditions in the world, and even I am not in favour of our present government, I totally support them this time.
By what I have seen and read many countries 'played' with lockdown and wearing masks, it was done half heartedy and certainly caused 1000 upon 1000 suffering and deaths.
By what is happening now when masks are not worn, another outbreak occurs. There's plenty of proof about that.
 
Bellbird said:
If saving 1000's of people from dying and contracting virus then lockdown didn't work, !!:rolleyes:
It certainly worked in New Zealand we had some of the strictest conditions in the world, and even I am not in favour of our present government, I totally support them this time.
By what I have seen and read many countries 'played' with lockdown and wearing masks, it was done half heartedy and certainly caused 1000 upon 1000 suffering and deaths.
By what is happening now when masks are not worn, another outbreak occurs. There's plenty of proof about that.
Click to expand...
Kudos to New Zealand! I just took another look at the COVID-19 world meter. Seems that comparing NZ to other first world countries, you guys had the least fatalities (184).
 
So, if there is a madman armed with lethal weapons, running around the streets shooting people at random, it is just silly to tell people to take shelter in their homes or schools?

That is what Covid is, Shero.
CarolfromTX said:
https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-...ed-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths

It will be interesting to see how some folks will try to disparage Johns Hopkins, a preeminent health care organization. This study cannot be easily dismissed as ā€œmisinformation.ā€
Click to expand...
That convinces me! From now on, I will take my health guidance from a publication called Health News Florida which is prominently asking for donations right there on their first page. Glad you pointed this out. Johns Hopkins is a fake, pretend medical school, hospital, and research facility, which is spreading lies. Let's all get our health guidance from Health News Florida instead.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top