The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

A Johns Hopkins meta-analysis reignited discussion about the adverse consequences of lockdowns after finding they had no significant mortality benefit "We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality," said the authors of the study, 'SHOULD BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND': LOCKDOWNS ONLY REDUCED COVID DEATH RATE BY .2%, STUDY FINDS

"Our study shows the benefits [of lockdowns] — in terms of fewer deaths — are questionable and small," Jonas Herby, special advisor at the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, told Fox News. Herby's research focuses on law and economics, and he is a co-author of the study.

The meta-analysis – a survey or study of previous studies – which Herby wrote along with two other prominent economists, noted lockdowns have had "devastating effects" as society weathers the unintended consequences.

"They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and undermining liberal democracy,"

johnny, you really need to stop accepting things blindly. You haven't read the study and you don't know what it contains. You only have some unexplained conclusions.

It's pretty difficult to believe those results because of a few obvious cases.

Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand each have about half the population of Sweden.

Sweden had no lockdowns. Finland, Denmark, and and New Zealand did.

Sweden has four times the deaths per capita of Finland, over twice the number of deaths per capita of Denmark, and over 125 times the deaths per capita of New Zealand.

Yet you repeatedly come back claiming lockdowns don't save a statistically meaningful number of lives. That's nonsense. There are obvious examples where they did, without question.

But you are too dimwitted to even ask what the definition of "lockdowns" is in the study you cite. The study definition of "lockdowns" could be meaningless, whereas they were quite meaningful in the cases of Finland and New Zealand.

You really need to start questioning the junk you read mindlessly. "What, EXACTLY, does the study say?" Not "What study fits into my preconceived partisan notions?"

Though I actually attended a few lectures at Hopkins, it is true that I am not an expert on that study done under the aegis of the school which offered the first PhD in America.

However, a meta-analysis which concluded that lockdowns didn't do much good was in accord with my own initial doubts.

Hippocrates said, in Of the Epidemics, that we should "First do no harm."

But lockdowns did harm first, destroying jobs, destroying businesses, causing depression and substance abuse and divorce to people who had done nothing wrong, and depriving their kids of 2 years of schooling.

Just glance at Clown's own rambling, incoherent postings and we can see the harm that Clown's lost years of schooling did to him.

First of all, there was no "John Hopkins study" that is being dishonest.

Second, the "study" was never even peer reviewed. So the data and conclusions were never even independently evaluated.

Third, the "study" was "performed" by economists not epidemiologists. And economists are not qualified to evaluate data and draw conclusions regarding the spread of diseases.

So I'm not sure where you people dredge up this nonsense. Just like anything else in life if you are going to bullshit...at least make it good bullshit.

It is a "study" of course, but to Elkin's point it is more accurately described as a meta-analysis, which is exactly what the thread title says.

As to this technique, it is the very same one used to discredit HCQ, but in this instance it is more fair because the proper way to think about lockdowns must perforce travel past medicine.

First, do no harm.

Lockdowns did the harm first, creating economic destruction, psychological damage, substance abuse, and two lost years of education for kids.

If you think lost education is no big deal, just look at Elkin's dismal posts and the effect will become all too clear.

So you're simply going to ignore the cases of Sweden. Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand because they make you look foolish and gullible. Got it.

As we see, your big problem seems to be you don't understand the meaning of the words "First, do no harm." You take them out of context and change the intent of their author.

He was not talking about non-medical things as you are. He was talking about treating patients. Like "Don't put out someone's eyes to treat a broken bone." It does not say "Don't pull a tooth to treat a rotten tooth because it will cause some pain and tissue damage if you do." That is what you are pretending was the intent. It wasn't. Doctors often must cause short-term pain and damage such as removal of tissue to do the greater good. Imagine modern cancer treatment if we didn't harm patients with poison and radiation, (temproraily making them even sicker) to save their lives. But you know that already and are simply being your regular dishonest, partisan self.

Of course, as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, and cancer show you, sometimes you must endure some pain to save thousands of lives (which is the greater good, dummy.) The lockdowns there achieved that goal. That is not the "harm" that was being talked about.

Also, the lockdowns saved many hospital systems from collapse in many areas, which in turn saved many more lives, and which was one of the purposes of lockdowns. We are paying the price again with our hospital system rationing care in some areas and care providers quitting due to being overrun by the stupid and ignorant who refused to get vaccinated. Lockdowns are the only thing that protects me from those people.

Sometimes doing nothing is doing the very "harm" that was the issue. You are the one calling for doing the "harm" of not doing what we know will best treat the illness. THAT is the kind of "harm" that was being talked about; stupid and ignorant people using their partisan wishful thinking to kill others, instead of taking the medicine that will cure them. This is what Trump-supporters like you are STILL doing. Only you're worse than them. You know they are wrong and still support their absurd 'right' to kill others.

What Hippocrates mean was first of all, don't do any harm -- don't worsen the status quo.

So now in early 2020 America was confronted with covid, and lockdowns instantly worsened the problem by destroying jobs and businesses, creating bankruptcy and foreclosure, creating anxiety and depression, creating two lost years of school for kids and yet unknown psychological damage, etc.

So, with good intentions, the lockdowns did harm first, and as Hopkins found provided only a very tiny medical benefit.

johnforbes demonstrates that he still doesn't get it.

In treating cancer, doctors first do harm, by cutting up bodies, poisoning bodies, and irradiating bodies of patients. Hypocrites would have no problem with this as long as it later serves to save the life of the body.

What johnforbes has a problem with is that the same thing must be done to social bodies in epidemics in order to save the most lives. Hypocrites would have no problem with that either.

johnforbes will never understand languages because he only understands them in partisan terms. He interprets everything in terms of how he can twist its meaning from what the author intended into something that supports his partisan beliefs.

If johnforbes want to extend Hippocrates' words to infrastructure and peoples' jobs, then he has to include doing harm to nurses and doctors who have given up and quit because of the ignorant and stupid who refuse to be vaccinated but have not been locked down for causing our health care system to be overburdened by the ignorant and stupid.

As Hippocrates said, sometimes doing nothing does more harm than doing something. That is the case with failing to put adequate lockdowns in place. That failure did harm right from the start.

More doctors and nurses have probably quit due to draconian vaccine mandates than any perceived risk due to exposure to unvaccinated people.

Biden used to say it was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."

However, that was NOT true, and it now seems far more like a pandemic of the vaccinated.

Take Austin, for example, a former general. His exogenous obesity probably helped him get covid despite being triple vaxxed and despite wearing a mask plus face shield so he looked like a character from "Star Wars."

By the way, I've seen pictures taken at Clowntoker's party last weekend and it did look like the bar scene from "Star Wars."

"Biden used to say it was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."
However, that was NOT true, and it now seems far more like a pandemic of the vaccinated."-johnfibs

johnny, 85% of all currently hospitalized Covid patients are unvaccinated dimwits. That's a pandemic of the UNvaccinated, not the vaccinated. The unvaccinated are crashing our hospital system, causing care to be rationed, and causing many caregivers to quit.

You shouldn't continue to spread your COVID lies or you'll b e thrown off twitter and facebook.

Then what will you do if you can't get the latest gossip and marching orders from you handlers?

I've never been on Twitter or Facebook.

Long ago (it might have been 1938), I took a look at Facebook, found it boring, and never returned.

That was long before dropout kid Zuck was pretending to be a doctor and deplatforming everybody.

As to Twitter, I've never been one of those tweeting twats like Clowntoker.

Notice how johnfibs tries to weasel out of acknowledging the truth of this pandemic of the unvaccinated?

Like those unvaccinated morons, he believes that if he simply refuses to believe in the unvaccinated will get sick, then the pandemic isn't real and it can't kill anyone.

It's that ridiculous Trump-supporter wishful thinking that johnny suffers from.

Not at all. My view on vaccines doesn't matter because I'm not a scientist (nor is Clown), but I figured with a little luck they might improve my odds.

That is an entirely different question from ordering everybody to get vaccines, which came out a year ago and where the long-term implications are utterly unknown.

Biden regime is willing to give out crack pipes and untested vaccines, but they draw the line at Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine.