Wrong, but not guilty.
Posted on 02/03/2022 5:37:15 AM PST by Kaslin
There may be less of them, but you still see a few "Believe Science" signs out while driving. The challenge is that scientific knowledge makes progress when ideas are questioned, debated and explored.
When the pandemic began, the public was told we could shut down for two weeks to flatten the curve. Two years later, we have endured a lot more than a two-week shutdown. Schools were moved to remote learning; colleges were shut for months; restaurants were forced to move to takeout only; and everyone who could move from working in an office to working from home did so.
Did the draconian response of governments pay off in lives saved? Late last month, the Studies in Applied Economics journal published a paper that looked at this exact question, titled "A Literature Review and Meta-analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality," by Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke.
Hanke is a professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering and co-founder of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. Herby, who holds a master's degree in economics from the University of Copenhagen, is a special adviser at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark. His research focuses on law and economics. Jonung is professor emeritus in economics at Lund University in Sweden.
Their goal was "to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that 'lockdowns' reduce COVID-19 mortality." They specifically looked at "any government mandate that directly restrict peoples' possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel." Their study looked at whether government mandates saved lives.
They concluded that "lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality." This was based on a review of data of actual responses after the lockdowns occurred. When this all began in 2020, we were told that a government mandate around lockdowns would save millions of lives. "An often-cited model simulation study by researchers at the Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020)) predicted that a suppression strategy based on a lockdown would reduce COVID-19 mortality by up to 98%," noted the study. While this was treated as "science" in 2020, it was a model based on science, and now that we have real world data, the analysis shows that the decision was wrong, and the lockdowns caused more harm than good.
One of the failures of the Ferguson model was it did not factor in people's natural reactions to danger. Even without government mandates, news of the pandemic would have caused people to change their behavior to avoid danger. A 2021 study by Herby noted the difference between changes people made on their own and those mandated by government. What was found was, "voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19."
This means that people can make determinations based on information regarding their own behavior. Not only do they not need government mandates but government mandates meant to control people are harmful. That's because the models that government works with regarding future outcomes are often wrong.
They concluded that "lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality." This was based on a review of data of actual responses after the lockdowns occurred. When this all began in 2020, we were told that a government mandate around lockdowns would save millions of lives. "An often-cited model simulation study by researchers at the Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020)) predicted that a suppression strategy based on a lockdown would reduce COVID-19 mortality by up to 98%," noted the study. While this was treated as "science" in 2020, it was a model based on science, and now that we have real world data, the analysis shows that the decision was wrong, and the lockdowns caused more harm than good.
One of the failures of the Ferguson model was it did not factor in people's natural reactions to danger. Even without government mandates, news of the pandemic would have caused people to change their behavior to avoid danger. A 2021 study by Herby noted the difference between changes people made on their own and those mandated by government. What was found was, "voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19."
This means that people can make determinations based on information regarding their own behavior. Not only do they not need government mandates but government mandates meant to control people are harmful. That's because the models that government works with regarding future outcomes are often wrong.
Wrong, but not guilty.
“There may be less of them, but you still see a few “Believe Science” signs out while driving.”
I haven’t seen any fewer of them. Same goes for the BLM signs. They are all displayed by silly, college-aged girls.
that was quick... i never had the chance... and yes, not guilty.
Speaking of the BLM signs. Did you year that 60 million $ are missing from the organization. Tucker Carson or Hannity was reporting about that last night.
I agree with what she said in the article. Why is she wrong?
Headline says “Models Can Be Wrong”.
I posted a picture of a model.
I opined that the model may be wrong, but she’s not guilty.
I made no attempt to read the article. Are you new here?
(Explanation number 2: It’s a standard joke here that we tend not to read the articles but often just react to headlines. By implying that you may be new here (I see you’ve been here 22 years or so), I am implying that you actually read the article. It’s a joke.)
All models are wrong but some are useful.
George E. P. Box
As long as they include that "little" qualifier, collectivists can fall back on their favorite "If it saves the life of ONE child...!" bluff and get away with saying the study supports their policy decisions.
Yes. The grift is huge. I have a pretty high level of doubt that Attorney General Merrick Garland is going to do much digging on that.
Who is that supposed to be? It is most definitely not Jackie Gingrich Cushman.
And an enormous number of fear-filled, stupid morons bought it. Those with more than a handful of functioning brain cells saw this for what it was, from day one.
It’s Wrong Model, scandalizing others who now don’t wanna be right.
I get it now. Thanks, you have given me a rare chuckle.
Speaking of the BLM signs. Did you hear that 60 million $ are missing from the organization.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m shocked!
Very good.
But remember that most of those who preach at us to "Believe Science" also tell us there are 48 different sexes and that it is beyond science to define when the life of a person begins.
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.