What a shocker. The narrative is exposed for what it is, and the media tries to hold on to the narrative. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths. According to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe. "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." LOCKDOWNS ONLY REDUCED COVID-19 DEATH RATE BY .2%, STUDY FINDS: 'LOCKDOWNS SHOULD BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND' However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders." It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results. Time Square deserted during lockdown (Ian Jopson) 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. "We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote. The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%. Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%. The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality. "[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote. "But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places." Close-up of sign for The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. (iStock) The researchers also examined studies that focused on specific lockdown measures and found that the only intervention that reduced COVID-19 mortality was the closure of non-essential businesses, which reduced mortality by 10.6%, but this effect was likely driven by the closure of bars. Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses. From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths, a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data. A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued. Experts advise caution when touching potentially contaminated surfaces. Ensure appropriate levels of hand hygiene to minimize risk of virus transmission, doctors say. (iStock) About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year. The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020. "These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument." (inb4 someone posts an article somewhere on CNN and says "see? They covered it)
You want Johns Hopkins? Here's some Johns Hopkins for you: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...oronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact What else you got?
Let's address this once again... Why would they promote a meta-analysis study by a right-wing think tank which cherry picks the underlying studies to provide the pre-determined result. An analysis which is completely flawed and is reminiscent of the Ivermectin meta-analysis studies -- which were pure bullshiat. This anti-lockdown study is just more of the same type of nonsense. Now let's take a look at feedback from respected scientists on this completely flawed anti-lockdown, pre-print, non-peer reviewed study. Scientists criticize flaws in study that found lockdowns do little to reduce COVID deaths The new paper, drafted by three economists, does not come from Johns Hopkins' Coronavirus Resource Center https://nationalpost.com/health/joh...le-to-prevent-covid-deaths-flawed-critics-say Expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the John Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...-krieger-school-of-arts-and-sciences-website/ Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19? https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...ineffective-against-covid-19/?sh=24766001225b Note that Herby, Jonung, and Hanke themselves used the term “working paper” to describe what they had put together. Simply calling it a “Johns Hopkins study” glosses over this important distinction. A working paper is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable scientific journal just like how a YouTube video of you getting pelted with sausages would not be the same as a full-length Hollywood movie. Here’s What We Know About ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ on Lockdowns It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/ The Bottom Line The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study. Furthermore, the conclusions of this non-peer reviewed working paper run counter to published studies in academic journals that found lockdowns did prevent COVID-19 deaths. One study, for example, found that lockdown policies helped prevent millions of deaths early in the pandemic. NPR reported: Solomon Hsiang, director of the Global Policy Lab, says these unprecedented shelter-in-place orders came at an extreme economic cost. Yet when government officials were ordering them, it was unclear exactly how significant the social benefits would be. “The value of these studies you’re seeing today is that they’re demonstrating what the benefits of this policy are,” Hsiang said in a press call discussing the studies. “They averted tens of millions of additional infections and millions of deaths.” First you should be aware that the non-peer reviewed, pre-print study out of a think-tank housed as John Hopkins University has been blasted by scientists as being complete cherry-picked nonsense. Also John Hopkins University made it clear the ""study" has no association with the university and is not supported by them. Let's call this study by economists at the right-wing "The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise" housed within the John Hopkins university out for what it is -- flawed meta-analysis where they cherry picked which studies would be included in their meta-analysis study to provide their pre-determined result. "After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis." Of the 34 “studies” included in the review, 12 of them were actually working papers. In fact, 14 of the “studies” were actually from economists with only one being from epidemiologists. This is odd since most of the key NPI research studies have been conducted by epidemiologists, medical researchers, and other public health experts. To qualify as a meta-analysis, a study needs to fulfill established criteria, which includes demonstrating that you’ve included all of the studies that have been published. Without providing clear evidence that you have done so, instead of “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” would a better title of this working paper have been “Stuff that We Selected to Support Our Point of View?” This institute at John Hopkins is really no different than the right-wing Hoover Institute at Stanford (which professors are demanding be given the boot) which manufactured endless Covid misinformation and gave us Scott Atlas. This reminds me of the meta-studies performed on Ivermectin. Tell us how they turned out in hindsight. Let's take a look at the history and information about the lead author at the right-wing Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics who funded this study. Of course the study has been hyped by Cato and all the other conservative websites and news organizations. Seeing the three authors were economists rather than medical, epidemiology, or public health experts. Isn’t that a bit like three proctologists telling you how the economy is doing? Here is the bio of the lead author... Steve H. Hanke is a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. He is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute, a contributor at National Review, a well-known currency reformer, and a currency and commodity trader. Prof. Hanke served on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, has been an adviser to five foreign heads of state and five foreign cabinet ministers, and held a cabinet-level rank in both Lithuania and Montenegro. He has been awarded seven honorary doctorate degrees and is an Honorary Professor at four foreign institutions. He was President of Toronto Trust Argentina in Buenos Aires in 1995, when it was the world’s best-performing mutual fund. Currently, he serves as Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Advanced Metallurgical Group N.V. in Amsterdam. In 1998, he was named one of the twenty-five most influential people in the world by World Trade Magazine. In 2020, Prof. Hanke was named a Knight of the Order of the Flag. So in review -- The first thing they did was exclude any study from their meta-analysis that would not provide the pre-determined result they desired -- from that point onward it is easy to manipulate the information into the desired results of the funders. These "meta-analysis studies" have reached the point in the Covid era where they simply serve to abuse science, statistics, and rationality. Tags: COVIDLOCKDOWNS COVIDMISINFORMATION
Who is going to pay for this avoidable tragedy? Will China and its fascist partners pay? No surprise gov't is incompetent and lies to protect itself. DOD just remodeled it statistics to protect the vaccine mandate.
re-read the link you posted it's mis-information,these points are false narrative i suppose now you can get free crack pipe to give you comfort,but not ivermectin