Were Lockdowns Ineffective

Dr. John Campbell ^ | Feb 5, 2022 | Dr. John Campbell

[DannyTN]

Video at link. My Summary in first post

Dr. Campbell reviews and critiques the paper by John Hopkins LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY, January 2022, Studies in Applied Economics.

[DannyTN]

My summary of the video "Were Lockdowns Ineffective? Dr. John Campbell"

Paper published by John Hopkins Economics department. Done by Economists and not medical doctors or scientists, but they are very good at statistics and what they do.

Primary focus was economics and their primary measure was deaths. Not much focus on other outcomes.

Likes "Putting belief to the test".

Early epiological studies predicted NPI's could reduce covid deaths by 98%. Looks weak now.

Took 34 studies to determine whether lockdowns were effective in reducing deaths. A complicated procedure for screening studies.

Uses 9 lockdown metrics to determine a strictness rating.

153 countries with over 1 million citizens

Concluded lockdowns have had little to no effect on covid-19 mortality.

Graph of deaths vs stringency index. Shows a positive correlation of deaths with stringency as opposed to a negative correlation we would expect.

Critiques

• Excluded effects of early lockdowns and focused on later lockdowns. Late lockdowns the virus has already spread.
• Do lockdowns work in theory, probably yes. Do lockdowns work the way we botched them up? Apparently not. Lockdowns have to be early and hard to be effective.

• Vast array of differing countries and circumstances.

• Compliance in US, Germany, Italy, China, various states have substantial variances.

• A lot of Pandemic fatigue. People got fed up and violated lockdown restrrictions.

• Voluntary changes to behavior is critical.

• Were papers chosen to support the theme? Don't know.

• Most of the papers used were written by Economists.

• lockdowns did even out admissions to hospitals and the paper doesn't really take that into account by the paper.

• Those that were going to die were going to die whether you locked down or not. Maybe not. Retrospective study.

• The disease itself and the fitness of patients were largely the determinant of the outcome. Generally true.

• If there hadn't been lockdowns what would have been the effects? Not addressed by the paper.

• Retrospect study. The retrospective scope casts a pure white light.

• Debate follows party lines. Growing anti-science feeling in the US.
• A future epedemic agent could be completely different.

• People who were protected from dying earlier died later may be largely true. But it would have been politically and socially unacceptable to have people dying while waiting in queues outside of hospitals. And the paper doesn't consider that.

• Uses the example of Boris Johnson who wasn't admitted to intensive care but did get 3 days of oxygen that probably saved his life. Had that not been available because 100,000 other people needed care at the same time, he might have died.

[MustKnowHistory]

I have really appreciated this man’s videos.

[lee martell]

Extended lockdowns were not effective,
especially not for schoolchildren or those running a small business.
There are already reports of toddlers not learning to speak on schedule compared to non-pandemic same age children.

[blackdog]

Highly effective. Just not relative to the narrative offered up.

Five years ago the world wouldn't eat a taco from Taco Bell because it had GMO corn. Now they line up with punch cards and masks to get GMO Vaccines injected into themselves with spliced RNA segments.

I'm really at a loss for words.....Since when has your health ever been anything the government has been wanting to do for you? Every time in history really, quite the opposite.

[Gay State Conservative]

Johns Hopkins School of Medicine just released a paper a week or so ago saying that the lockdowns were basically useless. In the world of medicine there's no research center with more credibility than Hopkins.

[DannyTN]

That’s the paper that Dr. John Campbell is reviewing and critiquing in this video.

[Vendome]

They were highly destructive and not one bit effective.

We are now moving into the cycle which brings massive bankruptcies and suicides.

Thanks givernment workers

[al baby]

Depends upon what outcome one wanted from the lockdowns

[Mr Rogers]

“Growing anti-science feeling in the US.”

More like a growing anti-BS feeling as the government continues to shovel endless manure our way.

[FamiliarFace]

If you wanted to use the lockdowns to induce fear into a population then the lockdowns and other measures worked great. I’ve learned we have a bunch of sheep instead of human beings with brains, or maybe some had brains but lacked courage.

[whitney69]

“Were Lockdowns Ineffective?”

It depends upon your determination of what is and is not. The only thing I can say it did was change the place you might get the virus. If you don’t go to restaurants because they are closed, you can get it at the supermarket buying food. If you buy a washer and dryer so you don’t have to go to a laundry, you can get it at the store. And that’s the only thing that is an absolute. If they don’t let you go one place, because there is so much of it, you can get it at the alternative place. So is it worthwhile....no unless you don’t leave your home, don’t have visitors, don’t go out for groceries, don’t get sick or injured and go to the doctor...in other words, don’t live.

wy69

[Sequoyah101]

I was thinking this morning about the “two weeks to flatten the curve”.

Yeah, right.

[packagingguy]

“ running a small business”

There is something very important. March 2020 I saw an article from an economist who said we had to the end of May to do lockdowns. After that the economy had to open, otherwise there would be economic disaster.

Well it looks like that’s exactly what we have now. Over 100,000 businesses wiped out; big and small. That’s the death of people’s dreams and the death of future, nimble businesses that could be the next Amazon, GM, Apple, etc.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[Sicon]

“two weeks to flatten the curve”.

Yup. It wasn’t the first “COVID” lie, but it was one of the earliest.

[glennaro]

I understood the initial panic immediately following that bogus UK study in February 2020 that predicted 10 million deaths in the U.S. alone, and I wasn't even suprised at the gut reactions to impose shutdowns, lockdowns and other extreme measures taken during that first month or so. But as spring 2020 went into summer 2020 and as it became clearer and clearer with each passing day that, despite the breathless reporting -- to the point of, well, nearly jubilance by the media -- that the forecasts of a modern-day Black Plague or Ebola-type existential global catastrophe were demonstrably far overstated, the manifestations of absolute power by so many politicians, unelected bureaucrats and "celebritized" medical experts clearly became as big -- if not a potentially much larger problem -- as The Virus itself.

And a frightened-out-their-minds public welcomed every bit of the control of their lives -- far too many still do! -- as the politicians, unelected bureaucrats and medical "experts" blamed the wholesale destruction they were deliberately inflicting on people, on the economy, on our social structure and on Liberty, on The Virus ... everything was the fault of The Virus or was done in the name of The Virus.

So you see, all the damage and all of the physical harm and psychological pain caused by the lockdowns, etc. was the fault of The Virus ... which will soon also be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the lockdowns (and nearly every one of the mandates) -- as none of the results of these dreadful things are the fault of the politicians, unelected bureaucrats and medical "experts", they had "good intentions" you know -- they were "forced" to do these terrible things because of The Virus.

But now -- now -- they continue to do terrible things such as abusing children by forcing them to wear useless masks, dreadful things to children's mental and physical health such as forcing them to receive experimental injections even as they are not threatened by The Virus; horrible things to peoples' freedom to make their own health decisions.

Point being: Although the crisis has passed, the tyranny continues.

[KittenClaws]

I effective and unconstitutional.

Even if effective, unconstitutional.

[The Fop]

“no unless you NEVER leave your home, NEVER have visitors, NEVER go out for groceries, don’t get sick or injured and NEVER go to the doctor...in other words, don’t live”.

I fixed it for you!

The evil demons will use the line “we just want to reduce hospitalizations” to justify all their tyranny. From lockdowns to forcing infants to get the jab, and everything in between.

Anyone who brings up hospitalization rates is on the side of the evil demons.

[heavy metal]

biden proved the kung flu is a scam when he opened our southern border and spread over 2 million invaders across our country during a supposed “global pandemic” while the cdc and world health organization sits back and silently watches...

[DannyTN]

"biden proved the kung flu is a scam when he opened our southern border and spread over 2 million invaders across our country during a supposed “global pandemic” while the cdc and world health organization sits back and silently watches...

That doesn't prove anything except that Biden is an idiot. And that democrats will do anything to be opposite Trump, even if it hurts this country.

Just like politicians not following their own mask rules doesn't prove kung flu is a scam. It does prove that politicians don't respect laws and regulations, that they think it can't happen to them. And their non-compliance does raise suspicions on their motives.

The "scam" as you call it, took the lives of my favorite Uncle and Aunt. Nearly took a third Uncle. And the vaccine may have taken a fourth Aunt.