| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 08:47 - Feb 2 with 1812 views | DanTheMan |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 08:24 - Feb 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
There was plenty of evidence about the South African experience of omicron that many on here preferred not to see.....so this 'agenda' thing can swing both ways. Personally I see no problem with reading stuff from across the spectrum to come to an informed position. |
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Also this paper has nothing to do with Omicron, focussing on the first lockdowns in 2020 pre-July by the looks of things.
I'm not sure what your point is. |  |
|  |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 09:00 - Feb 2 with 1782 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 08:33 - Feb 2 by ZXBlue |
Utter nonsense.
People quite properly accepted the scientific consensus that it was too early to reach firm conclusions on omicron based on early SA experience, especially when their demographics are so different. |
You're right, observed realities are probably best ignored until enough data is in! |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 09:00 - Feb 2 with 1781 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 08:47 - Feb 2 by DanTheMan |
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Also this paper has nothing to do with Omicron, focussing on the first lockdowns in 2020 pre-July by the looks of things.
I'm not sure what your point is. |
You're right, was meant as a general comment rather than a reply to yours.
Edit...and regarding this one I have already said that I don't really see the point of seeing this in cost/benefit terms regardless of outcome and regardless of variant. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 9:03]
| |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 09:19 - Feb 2 with 1754 views | wkj |
If there is a new unknown variable that can either increase transmission, severity or bypass vaccines - then you need to go quite strict, especially in winter when avoidable Covid hospitalisations can cause the capacity for other life-saving treatments to diminish.
As more is known, and seasonal conditions improve - ease certain restrictions and promote vigilance.
The important thing to note, is no one is ever 100% factually correct on these things at the beginning. You start with a working hypothesis that is scientifically accepted, then you adjust that hypothesis when new data or improved scientific theory is found. The majority of people attacking the science all seem to be operating from the logic that a hypothesis is fact, it isn't... it's the best working theory for the current time.
So, people getting socially ripped apart because they prefer caution until the facts are known (or becoming more clear) is heartbreaking to be honest. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 09:46 - Feb 2 with 1733 views | Cotty |
You will note that this is a study conducted by economists, not epidemiologists. I would take this study with a rather hefty pinch of salt. |  | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:26 - Feb 2 with 1694 views | BlueBadger |
Mortality is a massively different thing to morbidity, though. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:29 - Feb 2 with 1694 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 23:28 - Feb 1 by StokieBlue |
Out of interest, is the Washington Times one of the usual sources you browse or do you have a search setup just to find covid articles that may back your stance so you can post them (seemingly without bothering to read them from your own admission)?
It's an awful publication, it's list of controversies is longer than it's history on Wiki. Some highlights:
- Climate change denial
- Ozone depletion denial
- Second-hand smoke denial
- Publishing studies claiming covid was a Chinese biological weapon
- White nationalism
- Racism
- Neo-Confederatism
- Islamophobia
- Falsely accusing Russia of testing nuclear weapons
Now one should always look at the actual paper being cited but the publication is horrible and clearly has numerous agendas and that should also be considered.
SB |
It doesn’t matter if its published in the beano if you cut and paste the study out of the website and into a word document it is still the same study by the same author. Not sure why there needs to always be hostility. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:30 - Feb 2 with 1689 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 07:57 - Feb 2 by DanTheMan |
It's always worth reading the actual study before sharing links to papers that are reporting on the study. |
I haven’t had time, hence i’ve made no comment other than interesting. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:43 - Feb 2 with 1680 views | StokieBlue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:29 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
It doesn’t matter if its published in the beano if you cut and paste the study out of the website and into a word document it is still the same study by the same author. Not sure why there needs to always be hostility. |
Perhaps it's something to do with you continuously trying to minimise the pandemic whenever you can, questioning the scientific modelling and restrictions and then immediately posting the non-peer reviewed modelling and study from economists (not epidemiologists or virologists) which agrees with your viewpoint without even bothering to read it?
To be honest, it just looks like you're trying to get a rise from people.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:57 - Feb 2 with 1662 views | Radlett_blue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 09:46 - Feb 2 by Cotty |
You will note that this is a study conducted by economists, not epidemiologists. I would take this study with a rather hefty pinch of salt. |
Epidemiologists (cor, that's a long, difficult word) don't have to deal with the economic effects of lockdown & also don't necessarily understand the unintended consequences for mental health, children's education etc etc. The initial lockdown was understandable as there was no vaccine & there was a risk that the NHS would be overwhelmed. However, the reality is that lockdowns only delay a problem, unless you want to live with huge restrictions & their economic consequences for an indefinite period. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 11:10 - Feb 2 with 1641 views | Cotty |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:57 - Feb 2 by Radlett_blue |
Epidemiologists (cor, that's a long, difficult word) don't have to deal with the economic effects of lockdown & also don't necessarily understand the unintended consequences for mental health, children's education etc etc. The initial lockdown was understandable as there was no vaccine & there was a risk that the NHS would be overwhelmed. However, the reality is that lockdowns only delay a problem, unless you want to live with huge restrictions & their economic consequences for an indefinite period. |
"Epidemiologists (cor, that's a long, difficult word) don't have to deal with the economic effects of lockdown & also don't necessarily understand the unintended consequences for mental health, children's education etc etc."
Of course they understand that. I know quite a few of them.
"The initial lockdown was understandable as there was no vaccine & there was a risk that the NHS would be overwhelmed. However, the reality is that lockdowns only delay a problem, unless you want to live with huge restrictions & their economic consequences for an indefinite period."
They know this. The sole aim of lockdowns was to avoid short-term overwhelming of the NHS. | | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 11:26 - Feb 2 with 1619 views | gordon |
Another nice trick in this working paper is that the criteria they used to select the 24 studies they used in their meta-analysis of lockdowns actually excluded papers published by epidemiologists (the criteria are v. narrow and returned a set of papers that will produce the narrative they set out to find).
Research fields classified as social sciences were economics, public health, health science, management, political science, government, international development, and public policy,
- while research fields not classified as social sciences were ophthalmology, environment,
medicine, evolutionary biology and environment, human toxicology, epidemiology and anesthesiology
They only included 'social science' papers. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 11:27]
|  | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 12:36 - Feb 2 with 1568 views | BlueBadger |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:57 - Feb 2 by Radlett_blue |
Epidemiologists (cor, that's a long, difficult word) don't have to deal with the economic effects of lockdown & also don't necessarily understand the unintended consequences for mental health, children's education etc etc. The initial lockdown was understandable as there was no vaccine & there was a risk that the NHS would be overwhelmed. However, the reality is that lockdowns only delay a problem, unless you want to live with huge restrictions & their economic consequences for an indefinite period. |
Neither do economists have an appreciation go the sort of damage that overwhelmed health services would have not just on the economy but on other services as well.
Can't open schools if half your staff are off sick, in hospital, etc, etc | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 12:42 - Feb 2 with 1562 views | jaykay |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:29 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
It doesn’t matter if its published in the beano if you cut and paste the study out of the website and into a word document it is still the same study by the same author. Not sure why there needs to always be hostility. |
where's the hostility all i can see people have read the report and then pointed out the flaws in it.
people always seem to come up with the poor me, all this hostility when their post subject
is proven not to be all what it seems |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:33 - Feb 2 with 1529 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 10:43 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
Perhaps it's something to do with you continuously trying to minimise the pandemic whenever you can, questioning the scientific modelling and restrictions and then immediately posting the non-peer reviewed modelling and study from economists (not epidemiologists or virologists) which agrees with your viewpoint without even bothering to read it?
To be honest, it just looks like you're trying to get a rise from people.
SB |
How does this agree with my viewpoint if I have never said I am against lockdowns? That is just a smear as is the idea that I am trying to get a rise out of people. Best we ignore each other I think if you are going to continue to post unsubstantiated hostile untruths. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 13:36]
| |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:35 - Feb 2 with 1525 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 12:42 - Feb 2 by jaykay |
where's the hostility all i can see people have read the report and then pointed out the flaws in it.
people always seem to come up with the poor me, all this hostility when their post subject
is proven not to be all what it seems |
I was only referring to the poster I replied to where the hostility is clear, not to the polite replies which I have thanked posters. | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:41 - Feb 2 with 1511 views | StokieBlue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:33 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
How does this agree with my viewpoint if I have never said I am against lockdowns? That is just a smear as is the idea that I am trying to get a rise out of people. Best we ignore each other I think if you are going to continue to post unsubstantiated hostile untruths. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 13:36]
|
Happy for you to take it as a smear as your posting style throughout the pandemic is there for all to see. You're quick to dispute the modelling which was used as a basis of restrictions and you're often organised with data to hand yet in this case you've posted something you've not even read and then claimed "it's just interesting". It's fairly transparent what is going on.
You never answered my original question: Do you frequently read a US tabloid with an extremely dubious history or do you just have a search setup to feed you articles that you then don't bother reading and post on forums?
If it's the first one it's worrying. If it's the second one it's an implicit admission that you were looking for articles exactly like this in order to make some form of point.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:03 - Feb 2 with 1479 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:41 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
Happy for you to take it as a smear as your posting style throughout the pandemic is there for all to see. You're quick to dispute the modelling which was used as a basis of restrictions and you're often organised with data to hand yet in this case you've posted something you've not even read and then claimed "it's just interesting". It's fairly transparent what is going on.
You never answered my original question: Do you frequently read a US tabloid with an extremely dubious history or do you just have a search setup to feed you articles that you then don't bother reading and post on forums?
If it's the first one it's worrying. If it's the second one it's an implicit admission that you were looking for articles exactly like this in order to make some form of point.
SB |
Until you stop making the false assumption that I have posted this because I endorse it, none of your points make any sense. I have criticised future modelling, I haven’t even mentioned the modelling here never mind giving it any endorsement.
I have no idea what the Washington post is. I read the headline on sky news couldn’t find their article and so googled it and it came out on top.
Happy to discuss the merits or otherwise when I’ve read more, but I thought it was interesting as it is so much against the grain and so put it up for discussion. I am not going to engage with personal attacks though. | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:11 - Feb 2 with 1468 views | StokieBlue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:03 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
Until you stop making the false assumption that I have posted this because I endorse it, none of your points make any sense. I have criticised future modelling, I haven’t even mentioned the modelling here never mind giving it any endorsement.
I have no idea what the Washington post is. I read the headline on sky news couldn’t find their article and so googled it and it came out on top.
Happy to discuss the merits or otherwise when I’ve read more, but I thought it was interesting as it is so much against the grain and so put it up for discussion. I am not going to engage with personal attacks though. |
So you've managed to post numerous times on this thread over a roughly 24 hour period but you've not had a chance to look at the study?
Posting an article about a study you've not read from a source you claim not to know probably isn't the most sensible thing. You've yet to engage with any of the responses given to you on the study itself.
It's against the grain because it's written by economists not epidemiologists who have cherry picked the data sources used. You'd have known this if you'd read it before posting though. I certainly wouldn't classify it as interesting in the same way I wouldn't classify a paper on managing national debt by epidemiologists as interesting.
I'll leave it there since you aren't really responding and just citing personal attacks.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 15:10 - Feb 2 with 1429 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:11 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
So you've managed to post numerous times on this thread over a roughly 24 hour period but you've not had a chance to look at the study?
Posting an article about a study you've not read from a source you claim not to know probably isn't the most sensible thing. You've yet to engage with any of the responses given to you on the study itself.
It's against the grain because it's written by economists not epidemiologists who have cherry picked the data sources used. You'd have known this if you'd read it before posting though. I certainly wouldn't classify it as interesting in the same way I wouldn't classify a paper on managing national debt by epidemiologists as interesting.
I'll leave it there since you aren't really responding and just citing personal attacks.
SB |
economists trying to do epidemiological modelling was be an absolute farce. but taking aggregate data sets and looking for correlation etc is definitely what economists do. they aren't claiming any medical or virological reasoning, just asking if across countries / states if X goes up does Y go down. and in the article linked they're actually only reviewing other published articles which attempt that very aggregate analysis. i'm not suggesting that they have the right or definitive answer - or that their method is an appropriate way of looking at the effectiveness of lockdowns - but it's not a question which is beyond discussion. clearly in the next few years we will get definitive answers and we ought to then expect to see differences in outcomes based on differences in the policy tools used. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 15:50 - Feb 2 with 1399 views | benrhyddingblue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 22:09 - Feb 1 by ElderGrizzly |
Wasn’t the argument for lockdowns not on deaths, but reducing the numbers catching it and ending up in hospital.
Which it absolutely did. |
Just had a quick look at the research itself. They started out with over 18,000 studies providing data and cut this down to just 24 to base their research on. One of the criteria for this was:
"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."
So based on that the analysis ignores some of the main reasons for lockdowns in many countries.
They're also all economists so not surprising some of their conclusions. In the course of my own work over the years, I came across many studies by economists dismissing attempts to mitigate climate change on the basis of costs. |  | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 16:00 - Feb 2 with 1394 views | StokieBlue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 15:10 - Feb 2 by lowhouseblue |
economists trying to do epidemiological modelling was be an absolute farce. but taking aggregate data sets and looking for correlation etc is definitely what economists do. they aren't claiming any medical or virological reasoning, just asking if across countries / states if X goes up does Y go down. and in the article linked they're actually only reviewing other published articles which attempt that very aggregate analysis. i'm not suggesting that they have the right or definitive answer - or that their method is an appropriate way of looking at the effectiveness of lockdowns - but it's not a question which is beyond discussion. clearly in the next few years we will get definitive answers and we ought to then expect to see differences in outcomes based on differences in the policy tools used. |
I think we will have to disagree on this one.
The exclusion criteria used to reduce the 18000 papers to 34 looks a bit like it could contain confirmation bias which could be in order to get the papers they want. For instance:
- Why exclude all lockdowns outside the US and Europe? Other places had hugely effective lockdowns.
- "We exclude papers which analyze the effect of early lockdowns in contrast to later lockdowns." - this seems arbitrary and also ill-conceived given early lockdowns with a new disease are the most likely to prevent deaths.
Hopefully it will be peer-reviewed but that seems unlikely given it seems to be self-published and not in a journal.
For balance, here are a couple of meta-analysis done by medical experts which come up with the opposite conclusion:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34813628/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34161818/
Guess we will have to wait and see.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 16:54 - Feb 2 with 1350 views | CoachRob |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 15:50 - Feb 2 by benrhyddingblue |
Just had a quick look at the research itself. They started out with over 18,000 studies providing data and cut this down to just 24 to base their research on. One of the criteria for this was:
"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."
So based on that the analysis ignores some of the main reasons for lockdowns in many countries.
They're also all economists so not surprising some of their conclusions. In the course of my own work over the years, I came across many studies by economists dismissing attempts to mitigate climate change on the basis of costs. |
I can vouch for the nonsense economists have come up with on climate change, it is beyond comprehension to find some correlation between income and temperature and then calculate the damages based on a quadratic fit. Don't know whether you have read Dietz et al. (2021) but that sums up what David Vines stated in an INET seminar; that economists just aren't very good at maths or anything in my experience. Dietz claimed that AMOC abruptly shutting down would be a net benefit and eight tipping points reached would knock only a couple of percent off GDP by 2100.
Economists work in one of the most insular fields with a pre-scientific foundation which means they will keep producing this nonsense, can wait for their part of IPCC AR6, gives us all something to laugh at, if nothing else. |  | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:24 - Feb 2 with 1328 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:11 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
So you've managed to post numerous times on this thread over a roughly 24 hour period but you've not had a chance to look at the study?
Posting an article about a study you've not read from a source you claim not to know probably isn't the most sensible thing. You've yet to engage with any of the responses given to you on the study itself.
It's against the grain because it's written by economists not epidemiologists who have cherry picked the data sources used. You'd have known this if you'd read it before posting though. I certainly wouldn't classify it as interesting in the same way I wouldn't classify a paper on managing national debt by epidemiologists as interesting.
I'll leave it there since you aren't really responding and just citing personal attacks.
SB |
You’ve just equated the time taken to read and reply to some short posts on a message board to the time taken to read and try to comprehend a 61 page university economics study! And then you say I haven’t engaged with responses over something I haven’t read? Just post opinions on the study please and relinquish the Dad role. | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:50 - Feb 2 with 1309 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 13:33 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
How does this agree with my viewpoint if I have never said I am against lockdowns? That is just a smear as is the idea that I am trying to get a rise out of people. Best we ignore each other I think if you are going to continue to post unsubstantiated hostile untruths. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 13:36]
|
He really is very grumpy! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
