Johns Hopkins study, lockdowns don't work are ill founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy.

[AMart]

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

 

[daveman]

Silence, peasant! The Science has spoken!

 

[theHawk]

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

The W.H.O. had a published SARS pandemic response before WuFlu hit. It did not include any masks, lockdowns, or social distancing, because all the world’s virologists knew such measures wouldn’t work.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, designed to wreck the economy and of course get rid of OrangeManBad.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fascinating study, thanks for the link.

The discussion portion starting on page 41 really digs into the whys of their findings.

Will have dig more into this whole paper, but again thanks for the link.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The W.H.O. had a published SARS pandemic response before WuFlu hit. It did not include any masks, lockdowns, or social distancing, because all the world’s virologists knew such measures wouldn’t work.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, designed to wreck the economy and of course get rid of OrangeManBad.

Yes, the entire fucking world locked down just to get your god out of office!

 

[task0778]

Didn't Sweden figure this out back in 2020? I thought we were supposed to model ourselves after them, WTF?

 

[Death-Ninja]

Here's the real story America, this is from Senator Ron Johnson's hearing, these documents, they are from the DoD, so fuck off fascists who will of course attempt to obfuscate the shit out of the horror. They are murdering hundreds of thousands, soon to be millions, and no its not some conspiracy theory, its just good old fashioned "conspiracy!"

BREAKING- Leaked Database Shows U.S. Military Disease Skyrocketing After Covid-19 Inoculations

On January 25, 2022, Thomas Renz, the attorney for Doctors Peter Chambers, Theresa Long, and Samuel Sigoloff, testified before Congress regarding data leak directly from the Defense Health Agencies Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, otherwise known as DMED. Within DMED exists the Defense...

nemosnewsnetwork.com

 

[DGS49]

"Follow the SCIENCE!"

But what if the experts disagree?

It is a puzzle.

 

[task0778]

"Follow the SCIENCE!"

But what if the experts disagree?

It is a puzzle.

We've been lied to for decades by so-called experts. From the Coronavirus to Climate Change/Global Warming to Global Cooling before that to the Overpopulation disaster back in to 60s, and no doubt something else before that. Usually, it involves a lot of money to save us from annihilation and usually it turns out to be bogus. I mean, we're all still here, right?

You know what's really bad? We'll never know when the "experts" tell us something drastic is going to happen and nobody will believe them, like the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Concerned American]

We've been lied to for decades by so-called experts. From the Coronavirus to Climate Change/Global Warming to Global Cooling before that to the Overpopulation disaster back in to 60s, and no doubt something else before that. Usually, it involves a lot of money to save us from annihilation and usually it turns out to be bogus. I mean, we're all still here, right?

You know what's really bad? We'll never know when the "experts" tell us something drastic is going to happen and nobody will believe them, like the boy who cried wolf.

Obama and Hillarity tested this all out during the Arab Spring. They fomented discord with the use of social media very successfully and they have done it again, worldwide, with the scamdemic. Now Biden is attempting to create another crises in Ukraine--just in time for the mid terms. Democrats are pieces of shit.

 

[Death-Ninja]

Here's data from leaked DoD documents, this is from the DoD's version of the vaer's system with two notable exceptions, first it covers only DoD personnel, and secondly, only "medical professionals" may submit the reports, what follows is shocking,

Myocardial Infarction / Heart Attack heart rose 269% from 612 annual cases to YTD 1,650.


Myocarditis rose 285% from 127 annual cases to YTD 363.


Pulmonary embolisms 467% from 746 annual cases to YTD 3,489,


Cerebral infarction rose 393% with current YTD 3,438.


Bell’s Palsy rose 319% with current YTD 1,470.


Guillain-Barre Syndrome rose 250% with current YTD 3,635.


Immunodeficiencies rose 275% with current YTD 3,172.


Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura rose 322% with current YTD 564.


Multiple Schlerosis / Demyelinating Diagnosis rose 487% with current YTD 3,444 .


Neoplasms (tissue growth, often cancer precursor) rose 296% with current YTD 114,645.


Nontraumatic Subarchnoid Hemorrhage/ICH rose 312% with current YTD 1,858.


Spontaneous Abortion / Miscarriage rose 306% with current YTD 4,602.


Disseminate Intravascular Condition rose 1,175% from 7 annual cases to YTD 87.


HIV rose 590% from 454 annual cases to YTD 2,681.


Chest pain rose 1,529% from 4,892 annual cases to YTD 74,813 individuals.


Dyspnea / Difficult or labored breathing rose 905% from 4,968 annual cases to YTD 44,990.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

^^^THIS^^^
Leftists suck

 

[shockedcanadian]

I'm just the messenger. I've tried to sift through the noise and focus on the facts.

I never envied politicians, especially when they relied on healthcare experts to advise and there wasn't much known. Knowing what we know now, the focus should have been on the most vulnerable.

Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

www.foxnews.com

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

I'm just the messenger. I've tried to sift through the noise and focus on the facts.

I never envied politicians, especially when they relied on healthcare experts to advise and there wasn't much known. Knowing what we know now, the focus should have been on the most vulnerable.

Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

www.foxnews.com

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

Sad we knew this for a long long time...Children be damned!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Most of us back then said it would damage our economy and not do a fucking thing............Even then we were showing the studies of the cheap drugs and how the elderly should get them and allow the healthy to go out for herd immunity.

Now ....2 years later we are still pushing for the herd immunity with FAILED VACCINES that give no long term immunity..........and NOT ALLOWED TO USE LIFE SAVING DRUGS........Businesses were destroyed.......and Inflation is out the roof.

A complete attack against the lives of our people for a virus WITH A VERY HIGH RATE OF SURVIVAL........and most who died SHOULDN'T HAVE DIED.......BECAUSE THE FUCKING CHEAP DRUGS WORK.........

May FauChi..........ECO Health Alliance, the FDA, CDC, Moderna and Pfizer BURN IN HELL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

That is my nice way of saying it.

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,778 studies

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,778 studies

c19early.com

 

[shockedcanadian]

Sad we knew this for a long long time...Children be damned!!

It was the elderly that were the most vulnerable, this was known fairly early. Then we understood how important underlying conditions were to ones risk.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

It was the elderly that were the most vulnerable, this was known fairly early. Then we understood how important underlying conditions were to ones risk.

Yeah we knew that so early that nursing home residents were dropping like flies

What crimes against humanity

 

[Moonglow]

I'm just the messenger. I've tried to sift through the noise and focus on the facts.

I never envied politicians, especially when they relied on healthcare experts to advise and there wasn't much known. Knowing what we know now, the focus should have been on the most vulnerable.

Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

www.foxnews.com

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

This is a case of; We'll know better next time..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I could have told them this two years ago.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf