Study: Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths (1 Viewer)

[ekbeats]

Many viewed this claim as misinformation, even recently.  Yet another thing that Fauci got wrong.

The lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths by about 0.2%, the study found.

 

[LawFitz]

Yet another example of 'misinformation' eventually becoming INFORMATION. How many more will we need before people stop with the weaponization of that repugnant term?

 

[ekbeats]

Yet another example of 'misinformation' eventually becoming INFORMATION. How many more will we need before people stop with the weaponization of that repugnant term?

Exactly.  Hopefully people will learn a little intellectual humility from this.  I wonder if Media Matters will print a retraction to this. https://www.mediamatters.org/sinclair-broadcast-group/sinclairs-morning-news-anchor-repeatedly-pushed-covid-19-misinformation

 

[jobarules]

What did they define as lockdown? School closures? What else?

They also said this though which seems contradictory 

"Closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars," the report said.

 

[beef]

I'm old enough to remember when some lockdowns we're to help slow the spread and keep from overrunning hospitals that weren't prepared with ventilators or PPE gear.  

 

[Max Power]

I was ok with lockdowns for a couple weeks while we figured things out. We knew what some of the potential fallout could be. 

I'm disappointed we didnt take a harder look at the impact on children during this whole thing. They sacrificed a lot to keep the adults safe. 

Mental health wont recover for a while.

 

[dkp993]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

 

[pinkham13]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

Bro you can’t stop the wind and you can’t stop the flu or the common cold. Unless you stop breathing you will get sick sometimes. Looking to China as the gold standard example as away to beat a virus that we as humans have never and will never beat says a lot about how you think.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What did they define as lockdown? School closures? What else?

They also said this though which seems contradictory 

"Closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars," the report said.

I was coming in to post this part.   How I take the article is that while it was dumb to limit outdoor gatherings, school closures, etc..   It looks like closing bars and other big gatherings indoors helped a bit.  

 

[supermike80]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

Yeah even here i disagree.  The virus is still around.  Once everything opened up it would just start again.  

 

[dkp993]

Bro you can’t stop the wind and you can’t stop the flu or the common cold. Unless you stop breathing you will get sick sometimes. Looking to China as the gold standard example as away to beat a virus that we as humans have never and will never beat says a lot about how you think.

You read the part about me not advocating for it right?  I know any mention of China gets under your skin but you’re letting that distract you from the point.  But it’s hard to deny that had this turned out to be something more like Ebola which is highly contagious, kills quickly and at a high rate REAL lockdowns would be far more effective then the half ### lockdowns we did this time around.  The bottom line is for a lockdown to be effective it needs a very very high percentage of the population to participate.  

 

[beef]

Children are still being forced to wear masks at school - all day.  Imagine wearing a mask every day for 7 or 8 hours straight.  It’s child abuse at this point.

Ironic that more adults complain about this than kids?  It's like we're on planet Ork.  

 

[pinkham13]

You read the part about me not advocating for it right?  I know any mention of China get under your skin but you letting that distract you from the point.  But it’s hard to deny that had this turned out to be something more like Ebola which is highly contagious, kills quickly and at a high rate REAL lockdowns would be far more effective then the half ### lockdowns we did this time around.  The bottom line is for a lockdown to be effective it needs a very very high percentage of the population to participate.  

Like I said you can’t stop the cold, the flu, viruses or the wind. They mutate faster than you can sneeze. Only way not to get it is to stop breathing

Lockdowns are not effective strategies to control viruses no matter how jack booted you get with it. Israel is on their fourth dose and still no end in sight. China is still coping with virus and locking down cities again. If it worked it would’ve been over right?

 

[dkp993]

Yeah even here i disagree.  The virus is still around.  Once everything opened up it would just start again.  

This virus sure. A different one that’s more deadly with a quicker incubation period maybe not.  

 

[dkp993]

Like I said you can’t stop the cold, the flu, viruses or the wind. They mutate faster than you can sneeze. Only way not to get it is to stop breathing

Lockdowns are not effective strategies to control viruses no matter how jack booted you get with it. Israel is on their fourth dose and still no end in sight. China is still coping with virus and locking down cities again. If it worked it would’ve been over right?

Not all virus are the same.  Lockdowns absolutely can be effective, to argue otherwise makes no sense.  As does it to argue lockdown are always effective for every virus, a position I’m not arguing for.  For COVID it’s pretty clear it’s not effective.  

 

[pinkham13]

This virus sure. A different one that’s more deadly with a quicker incubation period maybe not.  

Which virus? Delta, omicron, convid 22, bird flu, swine flu, aids, tb or other scary sounding lockdown worthy were all gonna die political flu? Just wanna make sure we’re talking about the latest reason to institute the health pass/Chinese social credit score and their wonderful total control lockdown the slaves strategies. You can’t have it both ways. You say the only way to do it is the communist way. Which means nationwide federal blanket checkpoints and controls. Can’t believe how many here give up on freedom so easily.

 

[dkp993]

Which virus? Delta, omicron, convid 22, bird flu, swine flu, aids, tb or other scary sounding lockdown worthy were all gonna die political flu? Just wanna make sure we’re talking about the latest reason to institute the health pass/Chinese social credit score

I’m doing none of that and you’re taking this in a direction that I have no interest in engaging with. I know your theories on this well enough so I’ll just leave it here.  Have a good day GB.  

 

[supermike80]

This virus sure. A different one that’s more deadly with a quicker incubation period maybe not.  

Yeah I was referring only to this one.  

 

[pinkham13]

I’m doing none of that and you’re taking this in a direction that I have no interest in engaging with. I know your theories on this well enough so I’ll just leave it here.  Have a good day GB.  

Praises China as the gold standard for lockdowns and bows out. Typical

 

[dkp993]

Yeah I was referring only to this one.  

Sure, fair, and I was speaking to lockdowns as a theory.  

 

[dkp993]

Praises China as the gold standard for lockdowns and bows out. Typical

Why you’re trying to pick a fight I have no real clue other then I dared type the word China.  But I never said “gold standard” and was simply using them to illustrate how an effective lockdown would likely only work in an authoritative environment.  That or the virus is so deadly it scares the #### out of the general public to act on their own at a very high rate.   

 

[pinkham13]

Why you’re trying to pick a fight I have no real clue other then I dared type the word China.  But I never said “gold standard” and was simply using them to illustrate how an effective lockdown would likely only work in an authoritative environment.  That or the virus is so deadly it scares the #### out of the general public to act on their own at a very high rate.   

But it didn’t work is the point. They are still locking cities down. I also felt like you implied that we maybe should have been more like them in our Covid response. I think that is ludicrous. You can’t stop the common cold or whatever virus hits next. Especially not with tyranny. It’s never the answer to anything.

 

[dkp993]

But it didn’t work is the point. They are still locking cities down. I also felt like you implied that we maybe should have been more like them in our Covid response. I think that is ludicrous. You can’t stop the common cold or whatever virus hits next. Especially not with tyranny. It’s never the answer to anything.

The “I’m not advocating for it” line should have answered your bolded.  

 

[pinkham13]

The “I’m not advocating for it” line should have answered your bolded.  

It came across as a weak disclaimer. You still think a jack booted total lockdown would be advisable if it were a stronger strain. Or if they could convince us that the adverse reactions to injections are a new killer strain. Or Fauci and China designed something new with Gavi funding from Trump.

 

[dkp993]

It came across as a weak disclaimer. You still think a jack booted total lockdown would be advisable if it were a stronger strain. Or if they could convince us that the adverse reactions to injections are a new killer strain. Or Fauci and China designed something new with Gavi funding from Trump.

Keep digging, you might just get to China but I won’t be falling in that hole.  Adios. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Exactly.  Hopefully people will learn a little intellectual humility from this.  I wonder if Media Matters will print a retraction to this. https://www.mediamatters.org/sinclair-broadcast-group/sinclairs-morning-news-anchor-repeatedly-pushed-covid-19-misinformation

I didn't read this whole article, but he claimed "spread" not deaths.

 

[pinkham13]

Keep digging, you might just get to China but I won’t be falling in that hole.  Adios. 

I’m sorry I just see the thread title that lockdowns don’t work and you saying the only way they could is the way China did it. Which clearly didn’t work. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Here's the study: 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

I found this part interesting:

Our main conclusion invites a discussion of some issues. Our review does not point out why lockdowns did not have the effect promised by the epidemiological models of Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020). We propose four factors that might explain the difference between our conclusion and the view embraced by some epidemiologists.

First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates. So, we believe that Allen (2021) is right, when he concludes, “The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.” In economic terms, you can say that the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene is high when infection rates are high. Contrary, when infection rates are low, the demand is low and it may even be morally and economically rational not to comply with mandates like SIPOs, which are difficult to enforce. Herby (2021) reviews studies which distinguish between mandatory and voluntary behavioral changes. He finds that – on average – voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19. If people voluntarily adjust their behavior to the risk of the pandemic, closing down non-essential businesses may simply reallocate consumer visits away from “nonessential” to “essential” businesses, as shown by Goolsbee and Syverson (2021), with limited impact on the total number of contacts.47 This may also explain why epidemiological model simulations such as Ferguson et al. (2020) – which do not model behavior endogenously – fail to forecast the effect of lockdowns.

Second, mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others. 47 In economic terms, lockdowns are substitutes for – not complements to – voluntary behavioral changes. 42

Third, even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by changing behavior. As Atkeson (2021) points out, the economic intuition is straightforward. If closing bars and restaurants causes the prevalence of the disease to fall toward zero, the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene also falls towards zero, and the disease will return. 48

Fourth, unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which 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. 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. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality.

 

[TripItUp]

what  a clownshow

Democrats will pay dearly for this.

 

[LawFitz]

Remember this one: https://youtu.be/t1QgkdDXlao

Words used to silence people during the Covid era:

- Misinformation

- Disinformation

- Conspiracy Theory

- Anti-Vaxxer

- Trumper

- Anti-Science

If you regularly use any of the above terms, you really should take the moment to develop some humility. As has been said and now proven multiple times during the last two years... The difference between Conspiracy Theory and Fact during these awful Covid times has been ~6 months!

#NeverForget

 

[Insein]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

Like literally locking people into their homes and sealing their door with nails? Yea I'm glad we didn't go there. 

 

[dkp993]

Like literally locking people into their homes and sealing their door with nails? Yea I'm glad we didn't go there. 

Me too. 

 

[Insein]

Remember this one: https://youtu.be/t1QgkdDXlao

Words used to silence people during the Covid era:

- Misinformation

- Disinformation

- Conspiracy Theory

- Anti-Vaxxer

- Trumper

- Anti-Science

If you regularly use any of the above terms, you really should take the moment to develop some humility. As has been said and now proven multiple times during the last two years... The difference between Conspiracy Theory and Fact during these awful Covid times has been ~6 months!

#NeverForget

These words and the context in which people use them might as well be called sins or heresy. 

 

[ekbeats]

Fact check: Studies show COVID-19 lockdowns have saved lives

What would we do without the Fact Checkers?

 

[ekbeats]

More good stuff, from only a few months ago…

Fauci: We Might Need New Lockdowns to Fight the Omicron Variant

 

[ekbeats]

How does this little devil still have a job?

Fauci defends coronavirus lockdowns as saving 'millions of lives'

 

[Juxtatarot]

Fact check: Studies show COVID-19 lockdowns have saved lives

What would we do without the Fact Checkers?

I’m curious,  can you quote some things they said incorrectly?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think the interesting question would be what % of a reduction would you be expecting and what would make some of these measures worthwhile for a possible future virus?  

When talking about our large #s, a 10% reduction in death is significant, I thought.   (talking in relation to that blurb about the reduction seen with shutting non-essential businesses).  

 

[pinkham13]

How does this little devil still have a job?

Fauci defends coronavirus lockdowns as saving 'millions of lives'

We just need to all huddle at home in our masks and rubber gloves ordering from Amazon and Walmart on our MSFT and AAPL computers while watching Netflix and talking about game of thrones reruns on Face book err meta verse. If you really behave well we will top off your Facebook digital Zuckerberg bucks account with some Fed coin. If not…quarantined…. indefinitely.

 

[ekbeats]

Gotta love Salon taking it to the evil, conspiratorial Doctors opposed to lockdowns.  More fact checking too!

Meet the anti-lockdown doctor that conservative pundits are flocking to

 

[LawFitz]

I think the interesting question would be what % of a reduction would you be expecting and what would make some of these measures worthwhile for a possible future virus?  

When talking about our large #s, a 10% reduction in death is significant, I thought.   (talking in relation to that blurb about the reduction seen with shutting non-essential businesses).  

Indefinite mass lockdowns are and always were bull####, especially in the name of a virus with a 99% survival rate, easy transmissivity and a freaking non-human animal reservoir! Especially when we were (and still are) shouting down all the emergent early treatment and prophylactic measures that doctors around the globe were (and still are) utilizing to great success. Especially when we had identified vulnerable populations and could've taken selective measures to protect them specifically.

This whole thing was politicized from day one and used to usurp and centralize power over populations. The worst part about that now FACT is that so many like you are still putting your hands over your eyes and ears at every turn. They keep lying you to you, keep getting caught, and like a battered wife, you keep telling us how they didn't mean to and how they are better to you now. They aren't better. I don't know when they will be better, but it certainly won't come to pass as long as you keep giving them passes!

The FDA is not beyond your reproach. The CDC is not beyond your reproach. The NIH and filthy Fauci aren't beyond your reproach. Joe Biden and Democrats (and if you were a Republican I'd have said Trump) aren't beyond your reproach!

Not Brought to You by Pfizer.

 

[ekbeats]

One of the most important studies and one of the most important stories… and it’s not even mentioned in CNN.  Shameful.

 

[JIslander]

One of the most important studies and one of the most important stories… and it’s not even mentioned in CNN.  Shameful.

Is it?  What do you base that on?

 

[John123]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

You have no idea whether China's lockdowns have made a difference.  They haven't been forthright about ANYTHING related to this virus.  All we know is it came from China and there's a distinct possibility that they created it in a lab.

 

[quick-hands]

This is not really that surprising honestly, largely because we never actually locked down, at least in our actions as a whole. We put one foot into the water of lockdowns and it turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.  

Now to be clear I’m not advocating for the lockdown but the only way for it to be effective is how China did it, a literal lockdown.  You can’t have huge percentages of the population ignoring a lockdown for it to ultimately be effective.  

We didn't lock down.    In Michigan we could  go into an aco to buy stuff except that had police tape around it.   But yea no lock down.

 

[Dickies]

I encourage everyone to read the study's actual conclusions instead of just simply saying that lockdowns, masks, and other measures to slow down Covid don't work.  I would say they do work, but we went about implementing them in the wrong way.  Another factor they point out is compliance rates, which I'm going to guess we were laughably terrible at.

 

[dkp993]

You have no idea whether China's lockdowns have made a difference.  They haven't been forthright about ANYTHING related to this virus.  All we know is it came from China and there's a distinct possibility that they created it in a lab.

I didn’t say it WAS effective, I said that’s how it WOULD be effective.   

 

[dkp993]

We didn't lock down.    In Michigan we could  go into an aco to buy stuff except that had police tape around it.   But yea no lock down.

When you look at the country as a whole we didn’t lock down.  

 

[John123]

I didn’t say it WAS effective, I said that’s how it WOULD be effective.   

How do you know it WOULD be effective without any DATA that it WAS effective?

 

[dkp993]

How do you know it WOULD be effective without any DATA that it WAS effective?

John if you read my other posts in this thread I made it clear I was talking about the theory of lockdowns not what happened with COVID.  Also, as I said here too, I agree it wasn’t effective with COVID and did tons of ancillary damage.