Johns Hopkins study says lockdowns did more harm than good

Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?

The emotional damage should be included also.

Families separated. 😥

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.
 
I agree with this totally and never really fully understood the long lock downs. Not only for the business sense of it, but also the sense of being cooped up in a space for a period of time taking its toll on people which it most definitely did. I have and will always stand for people using there own minds to deal with this pandemic as to going out shopping with a mask or if they feel they want to attend a big gathering during a holiday or a concert with or without a mask. It comes down to a decision that should be left up to the said individual. I have said this many times already in many of these types of threads. People are entitled to make there own decisions as with those decisions they also must be willing to deal with whatever consequences come their way. This must not be left up to others to decide for them.
 
Although I have great respect for John Hopkins, not every study that emerges is worthy of deep consideration.

1. John Hopkins did not even put out a press release about this study. The University did not publicize the findings. Why?

2. Because it has not been peer-reviewed. Let alone published!!

3. These researchers deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health !

4. An Economics professor knows nothing about epidemiology or virology.

John Hopkins is very much in order not to support these findings.
.
 
Last edited:
I agree Johns Hopkins is known for there medical research and even though I expect the Economics Department is top notch it is not what Johns Hopkins is known for. I live in the area of Johns Hopkins and have a husband who was lucky enough to do Residency there so we are fully aware of the accomplishments in the Medical field that they have and that is why they are one of the top Medical hospitals and Universities around.

It is true Economics researchers will focus on one side of the issue which is what they really are experts in reporting on and that is all fine, but honestly does that give the full picture no it does not. It gives a focused report which I personally feel is true and factual , but I also think there is more to the full story.
 
CarolfromTX said:
Johns Hopkins study says lockdowns did more harm than good
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Carol, it is a very interesting study, and I believe its findings will likely hold up with time.

However the Hopkins study did not conclude that the "lockdowns did more harm than good". This is what the news story says, but if you read the study it appears to be a misleading headline written by a reporter, not by the study's authors.

What it looks to me like they found was that government mandated lockdowns were only marginally better than not. Here is a telling finding from the report:

"...people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates. So, we believe that Allen (2021) is right, when he concludes, “The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.”"

Note the way they used the term "lockdown" was limited to government mandated lockdowns, it did not include advisories or recommendations or other forms. They also included government mandated masking in their definition of lockdown.

So they conclude that lockdowns dictated by governments did not help much. And a possible reason for this that they point out is people were already doing a lot of these things without government mandates.
 
Last edited:
Becky1951 said:
Also hasn't the suicide rate climbed since lockdowns?

The emotional damage should be included also.

Families separated. 😥

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...

Just yesterday a report on the news saying that the learning level/education level of the nations kids dropped during the lockdown. Mostly due to the fact that so many of them [kids] did not do the lessons available on line . The report said thousands didn't even log-on.
 
In hindsight, I think that the lockdowns, stimulus payments, disruptions to education, etc... did not have nearly as great a benefit as was originally thought.

IMO it all comes down to a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

It's interesting that the simplest public health measures seemed to provide the most benefit at the least cost.

I suppose that there could be a lesson in there somewhere. :unsure:
 
Shero said:
Although I have great respect for John Hopkins, not every study that emerges is worthy of deep consideration.

1. John Hopkins did not even put out a press release about this study. The University did not publicize the findings. Why?

2. Because it has not been peer-reviewed. Let alone published!!

3. These researchers deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health !

4. An Economics professor knows nothing about epidemiology or virology.

John Hopkins is very much in order not to support these findings.
.
Click to expand...
A study that doesn't fit your narrative is not worthy of deep consideration. :giggle:
 
rgp said:
Just yesterday a report on the news saying that the learning level/education level of the nations kids dropped during the lockdown. Mostly due to the fact that so many of them [kids] did not do the lessons available on line . The report said thousands didn't even log-on.
Click to expand...
I agree that in person learning is the way students should be taught and the most beneficial way for them to learn. One of the main problems with the online learning was parents did not have either the know how or the time to follow up with there kids on what they were doing. Also if the kids did not log on they should have been reported as absent from school because from what I was told about online schooling each day log in the students reported to a certain teacher to report they were there for the day.
 
Shero said:
An Economics professor knows nothing about epidemiology or virology.
Click to expand...
From the horse's mouth...
While it is true that epidemiologists and researchers in natural sciences should, in principle, know much more about COVID-19 and how it spreads than social scientists, social scientists are, in principle, experts in evaluating the effect of various policy interventions.
Click to expand...
Even this working paper, the authors acknowledge the difference between a peer reviewed paper and a working paper.
Peer-reviewed vs. working papers: We distinguish between peer-reviewed studies and working papers as we consider peer-reviewed studies generally being of higher quality than working papers.
Click to expand...
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?

Today, it remains an open question as to whether lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on COVID-19 mortality. We address this question by evaluating the current academic literature on the relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 mortality rates. We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above.
Click to expand...
And finally...
We only include studies that attempt to establish a relationship (or lack thereof) between lockdown policies and COVID-19 mortality or excess mortality.
We exclude studies that use cases, hospitalizations, or other measures
Click to expand...
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.
There is some evidence that business closures reduce COVID-19 mortality, but the variation in estimates is large and the effect seems related to closing bars
Click to expand...
 
the study does not address the medical issues driving the pandemic .lockdowns are instituted to stop the spread of disease. there are bound to be economic and\or social consequences. stopping the pandemic is important. if it's not stopped there won't be economic and social issues to be concerned with .it's a balancing act
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top