| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:52 - Feb 2 with 1228 views | footers |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:24 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
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. |
To be fair, you're someone who's spent months, or possibly years, researching the 'truth' about 9/11 and the official report is apparently too long for you to finish. |  |
|  |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:57 - Feb 2 with 1204 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| 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. |
He just doesn't Iike his (obviously, entirely correct on everything) view challenged. He also has an uncanny ability, to know better than yourself what your view and secret agendas on any given subject is and are. In short he can come across as being a bit pompous but I'm sure he's lovely really. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 18:03 - Feb 2 with 1185 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 16:54 - Feb 2 by CoachRob |
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. |
"....that economists just aren't very good at maths or anything in my experience."
Now that's worth an uppie! | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 18:18 - Feb 2 with 1150 views | eireblue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 16:00 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
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 |
Interesting……
A policy conclusion they reached later in the paper was
“ In the early stages of a pandemic, before the arrival of vaccines and new treatments, a society can respond in two ways: mandated behavioral changes or voluntary behavioral changes. Our study fails to demonstrate significant positive effects of mandated behavioral changes (lockdowns). ”
But as you pointed out they earlier stated
"We exclude papers which analyze the effect of early lockdowns in contrast to later lockdowns."
Is it me, or does that seem somewhat,…..similar to the circumstances of cart being incorrectly juxtaposed with a horse, and someone extrapolating from rear wheeled drive cars to something that isn’t a car. |  | | |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:02 - Feb 2 with 1110 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 17:52 - Feb 2 by footers |
To be fair, you're someone who's spent months, or possibly years, researching the 'truth' about 9/11 and the official report is apparently too long for you to finish. |
? |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:15 - Feb 2 with 1086 views | Trequartista |
ok i've had a few minutes to look at the study and there are some obvious question marks that others have noted regarding the parameters of the study that don't seem to cover enough of the pandemic in enough countries to make it anywhere near a definitive study.
other than that, i'm not going to pretend i understand much of it! i'm sure many others don't either if they are as honest.
will look out for a peer review of the report, to see what someone much more qualified makes of it
i think we've all seen the graph curves flatten when the lockdowns occurred even if it's difficult to quantify the cost that they bring, and even if they didn't quite flatten on the dates we expected them too, so i haven't seen enough here to change my mind that the lockdowns were necessary during the waves we had when there was no vaccine. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 19:16]
| |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:57 - Feb 2 with 1058 views | StokieBlue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:15 - Feb 2 by Trequartista |
ok i've had a few minutes to look at the study and there are some obvious question marks that others have noted regarding the parameters of the study that don't seem to cover enough of the pandemic in enough countries to make it anywhere near a definitive study.
other than that, i'm not going to pretend i understand much of it! i'm sure many others don't either if they are as honest.
will look out for a peer review of the report, to see what someone much more qualified makes of it
i think we've all seen the graph curves flatten when the lockdowns occurred even if it's difficult to quantify the cost that they bring, and even if they didn't quite flatten on the dates we expected them too, so i haven't seen enough here to change my mind that the lockdowns were necessary during the waves we had when there was no vaccine. [Post edited 2 Feb 2022 19:16]
|
Do you not think it would have been better to have read the study first before you posted rather than frantically getting it out there?
It's entirely possible some people might have read the article (which was rubbish) without reading the study and are now if the opinion that lockdowns don't work.
It's irresponsible in my opinion to post something without knowing what it contains, moan about responses and then roll back entirely and say actually the study isn't really interesting at all.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 20:21 - Feb 2 with 1037 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:57 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
Do you not think it would have been better to have read the study first before you posted rather than frantically getting it out there?
It's entirely possible some people might have read the article (which was rubbish) without reading the study and are now if the opinion that lockdowns don't work.
It's irresponsible in my opinion to post something without knowing what it contains, moan about responses and then roll back entirely and say actually the study isn't really interesting at all.
SB |
"Frantic" is your imagination again.
Possible but unlikely, guess what, people can read stuff that doesn't fit their narrative and take a considered view.
You are the one that seems to consistently do the 'moaning'. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 21:35 - Feb 2 with 1000 views | Trequartista |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 19:57 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue |
Do you not think it would have been better to have read the study first before you posted rather than frantically getting it out there?
It's entirely possible some people might have read the article (which was rubbish) without reading the study and are now if the opinion that lockdowns don't work.
It's irresponsible in my opinion to post something without knowing what it contains, moan about responses and then roll back entirely and say actually the study isn't really interesting at all.
SB |
1) Not really, i posted it for others to comment, which they did. Had i put "This proves lockdowns don't work" then it would have been better to read it first. But i didn't.
2) Is it rubbish? That's your opinion, not fact.
3) If you look carefully i didn't moan about any responses to the article, including your initial response which was fine. I only defended myself from subsequent attacks. | |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 21:59 - Feb 2 with 977 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 18:18 - Feb 2 by eireblue |
Interesting……
A policy conclusion they reached later in the paper was
“ In the early stages of a pandemic, before the arrival of vaccines and new treatments, a society can respond in two ways: mandated behavioral changes or voluntary behavioral changes. Our study fails to demonstrate significant positive effects of mandated behavioral changes (lockdowns). ”
But as you pointed out they earlier stated
"We exclude papers which analyze the effect of early lockdowns in contrast to later lockdowns."
Is it me, or does that seem somewhat,…..similar to the circumstances of cart being incorrectly juxtaposed with a horse, and someone extrapolating from rear wheeled drive cars to something that isn’t a car. |
My spidey senses are tingling all over with this one. The paper is apparently lead authored (or at least his is the first name on the report) by an employee of a right wing and highly political think tank*, under the cover of respectability of an academic who's been all over social media arguing against the consensus view on covid, in a 'special series' publication with no peer review or apparent independent checks, using a seemingly flawed approach to reinforce pre-held views.
* CEPOS have a track record of peddling climate sceptic misinformation and refuse to disclose who funds them. Although they are linked to funding from the Koch brothers funding. Although having said that, they are seen as a 'proper think tank' by the Danish authorities.
I might be completely wrong of course, as I'm not close to the work and realise my own bias is contributing to my view. But as a final word without bias, no study has any credibility until it's properly reviewed and shouldn't be reported without critique by the press. I've seen this exact thing happen in my own filed and it's normally motivated by politics or, more often, egos. |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 11:13 - Feb 4 with 883 views | itfcjoe |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 21:59 - Feb 2 by Swansea_Blue |
My spidey senses are tingling all over with this one. The paper is apparently lead authored (or at least his is the first name on the report) by an employee of a right wing and highly political think tank*, under the cover of respectability of an academic who's been all over social media arguing against the consensus view on covid, in a 'special series' publication with no peer review or apparent independent checks, using a seemingly flawed approach to reinforce pre-held views.
* CEPOS have a track record of peddling climate sceptic misinformation and refuse to disclose who funds them. Although they are linked to funding from the Koch brothers funding. Although having said that, they are seen as a 'proper think tank' by the Danish authorities.
I might be completely wrong of course, as I'm not close to the work and realise my own bias is contributing to my view. But as a final word without bias, no study has any credibility until it's properly reviewed and shouldn't be reported without critique by the press. I've seen this exact thing happen in my own filed and it's normally motivated by politics or, more often, egos. |
I listened to a great podcast series recently - Doomsday Watch - and there was one spisode about the misinformation war etc.
Basically concludes that those against every part of covid - ie lockdown sceptics, vaxx sceptics etc - don't care, but it has almost been used as a warm up and refinement of methods etc to warm up for the upcoming and more important battle against climate change as it is just not int heir interests.
Whole series worth a listen as tackles different topics, but this is the particular episode
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-war-on-truth/id1593634121?i=1000548304 |  |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:26 - Feb 6 with 780 views | Swansea_Blue |
No great surprise, it looks like it's getting ripped apart by those in the field.
| |
| |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 15:57 - Feb 6 with 718 views | DanTheMan |
| Lockdowns don't work according to John Hopkins University study on 14:26 - Feb 6 by Swansea_Blue |
No great surprise, it looks like it's getting ripped apart by those in the field.
|
How shocking, a non-peer reviewed paper by economists talking about epidemiology turns out to not be very good.
Just to reiterate what I said earlier, read the studies people, at the very least the conclusions.
If a few journalists would have done that with the Andrew Wakefield paper years ago many lives would not have been lost. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
