Posted on 02/04/2022 8:23:26 AM PST by BenLurkin
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."
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
if the narrative don’t fit, we must omit..................
Meta-analysis is a quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about that body of research. Outcomes from a meta-analysis may include a more precise estimate of the effect of treatment or risk factor for disease, or other outcomes, than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis. The examination of variability or heterogeneity in study results is also a critical outcome. The benefits of meta-analysis include a consolidated and quantitative review of a large, and often complex, sometimes apparently conflicting, body of literature. The specification of the outcome and hypotheses that are tested is critical to the conduct of meta-analyses, as is a sensitive literature search. A failure to identify the majority of existing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions; however, there are methods of examining data to identify the potential for studies to be missing; for example, by the use of funnel plots. Rigorously conducted meta-analyses are useful tools in evidence-based medicine. The need to integrate findings from many studies ensures that meta-analytic research is desirable and the large body of research now generated makes the conduct of this research feasible.
In other words, combining various studies.
Not to mention the new study saying natural immunity is far superior to the jab.
Meta-analysis means the folks look at a really big number of studies:
meta-analysis mĕt″ə-ə-năl′ĭ-sĭs noun
1. The process or technique of synthesizing research results by using various statistical methods to retrieve, select, and combine results from previous separate but related studies.
2. Any systematic procedure for statistically combining the results of many different studies.
3. An analysis resulting from combining the results of diverse statistical studies.
Hmmmm...okay.
Thank you.
Undoubtedly the biggest news of the week - Ignored. I’ll admit the CNN story was sweet, but, seriously...
On Trumps last day in office, the death count from COVID magically hit the 400,000 milestone. He had "blood on his hands", "did not listen to the science" and had less than 5% of the country vaccinated.
Under Biden, "adults are in charge", "will listen to the science", 70% vaccinated..... 500,000 have died from COVID
Johns Hopkins, seeking cover. This is the place that hosted the Gates/Fauci Event 201 drill in November of 2019 that was the template for the “pandemic” they launched 2 months later.
Now they are trying to throw others under the bus where they also belong.
Hey I mean that’s not a big news story or anything it’s not like covid has had a significant effect on people’s lives, and the Bidens have a cat.
“A failure to identify the majority of existing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions”
Yep
Remember, all of the non-narrative-confirming stuff was was/still is viewed to be “anecdotal”, just plain wrong, or not real because “Science”?
e.g. “HorsePaste!”
If you look at lots of stuff, you get a different picture.
What’s the mets-anyalsis have to say about the surge of depression & suicide rates because of the lockdowns??
IF the study had shown that lockdowns WERE effective you can be sure they would have been all over it.
We would have heard... See, see, see. The lockdowns did work!
I’m giving you two gloved thumbs up!
I’m waiting for a Bee headline saying ‘CNN confirms pedophilia increases covid immunity.’
Virtue Soapboxing is more important than science.
How long before Johns Hopkins is banned from Twitter and other social media platforms?
Yes, it’s a huge analysis,of many studies compiled together
Rand Paul should take to,the podium and expose the fact that CNN and ilk are refusing to even discuss the study, and point out that the only reason that one woild do that is in an attempt to,cover yp,up, truth and to keep the left’s misinformation going full steam ahead. Play dirty Rand! Throw this right in their faces and force them to address the sisue
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.