Posted on 02/02/2022 1:11:36 PM PST by Grandpa Drudge
A meta-analysis spearheaded by John Hopkins University has found that the economically devastating lockdowns that occurred in the spring of 2020 barely moved the needle on preventing COVID deaths.
The meta-analysis also found that most specific nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) tended to offer little benefit, save for, in it would appear, one measure.
“Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality,” according to the analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanwirenews.com ...
In a report on the John Hopkins study, the “Vigour Times” said this about the study which has not been peer reviewed:
“The researchers — who deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health — originally identified 18,590 global studies into lockdowns, which they claim had to be whittled down to just 24 to answer their research question.
Critics have accused them of ‘cherry-picking’ studies to suit their narrative and have raised doubts about the biases of its authors, who have been vocal about lockdowns and vaccine mandates on social media.”
We shall see, in days ahead, the results of the peer reviews.
Here's a few (there are more)
If Politifact is found wrong they will acknowledged the mistake. The journalist doing the writing for PoliltiFact are from the newspaper, “The Tampa Bay Times.” Journalists sometimes get the facts wrong and do a disclaimer of the bad information. This is what they do: “We re-assessed the evidence, archived the original version here, and published the version you see here with a new rating of Half True. We apologize for the error.”
PolitiFact did respond to the “Federalist” complaint:
“Biden’s Criticism of Trump Team’s Vaccine Contracts Is a Stretch.”
That's hilarious. Next thing you know they'll be misrepresenting the Mayo Brother Clinics
lol...
I seriously doubt that! Here's an extract of an article documenting media reaction to the Johns Hopkins study:
A Johns Hopkins University study finding that COVID-19 lockdowns were entirely ineffective went over like a lead balloon with the corporate media, be it the leading newspapers or cable news.
According to a John Hopkins 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, Fox News reported.
“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,” wrote the researchers. “In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the study declared. “They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.”
The findings received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week, according to Fox News.
“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,'” the network reported. “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.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to the findings to stress that most of the lockdowns took place under the previous administration and said President Biden is not pro-lockdown — she did not dispute the report.
This critique of the study thoroughly analyzes its flaws and the bias of its creators:
And this:
From the Science Media Center:
I studied all three links you presented. I can see NO actual refutation of ANY of the conclusions in the Johns Hopkins meta analysis.
Instead, I see lengthy and wordy "Pseudo Science" objections based on various vague issues such as complexity of data, not yet peer reviewed, motivations of the Johns Hopkins authors, etc.
It's pretty obvious that the authors of your links are severely biased in favor of the political mandates for vaccine and lockdowns.
I remember reading a study that said that smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer. It was used as an example of statistical bias. When it uses metadata, it uses a collection of data from various studies to support the conclusions of a study. If the various studies are biased, the collection becomes biasses with the word asses that describes the cherry-picking that went on to get the results. Wait until the peer reviews come in. We can speak later, when they do.
this is CYA mode....they all knew....all of them....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.