excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,293
- 34,729
- 2,290
Posting it here because it is too important to get lost elsewhere.
From 'The Lancet', which has had some problems of its own recently.
A study published Tuesday in The Lancet medical journal found that full lockdowns, border closures and high rates of coronavirus testing are not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the total number of critical cases or the virus’s overall mortality rate.
However, the study, which was based on data from the 50 countries with the most reported cases as of May 1, noted that lockdowns and border closures are likely associated with better overall health outcomes, as the measures helped drive down the rate of the virus’s transmission and reduce the load on hospital systems.
“In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes.”
“However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,” the researchers added.
...
“Countries with a higher per capita GDP had an increased number of reported critical cases and deaths per million population,” the researchers reported. “This may reflect more widespread testing in those countries, greater transparency with reporting and better national surveillance systems. Other potential putative reasons for the association might include increase [sic] accessibility to air travel and international holidays in wealthier countries.”
...
stream.org
From 'The Lancet', which has had some problems of its own recently.
A study published Tuesday in The Lancet medical journal found that full lockdowns, border closures and high rates of coronavirus testing are not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the total number of critical cases or the virus’s overall mortality rate.
However, the study, which was based on data from the 50 countries with the most reported cases as of May 1, noted that lockdowns and border closures are likely associated with better overall health outcomes, as the measures helped drive down the rate of the virus’s transmission and reduce the load on hospital systems.
“In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population,” the researchers reported. “These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes.”
“However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,” the researchers added.
...
“Countries with a higher per capita GDP had an increased number of reported critical cases and deaths per million population,” the researchers reported. “This may reflect more widespread testing in those countries, greater transparency with reporting and better national surveillance systems. Other potential putative reasons for the association might include increase [sic] accessibility to air travel and international holidays in wealthier countries.”
...
Study Finds That Full Lockdowns Did Not Reduce Coronavirus Mortality Rate | The Stream
A new study found that full lockdowns, border closures and high rates of coronavirus testing are not associated with the virus’s overall mortality rate.
stream.org
