Lockdowns in U.S. Europe had little impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: LordAhriman

Asymptomatic infections. Being infectious before symptoms. America never had lockdowns? That's odd why did all the stores and restaurants close?

Not being able to go to Applebee's is not a lockdown. Walmart was packed to capacity every single day.

Oh, so you were in the Chinese "starve 'em to death in their homes, shoot 'em on sight" camp? Remind me never to put you in charge of anything.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
For the pro lockdown folks a question,since the virus is in the animal kingdom and appears to be able to bounce back and forth, what has the lockdowns accomplished beyond wrecking economies and damaging public health?

(Virus was found in white tail deer over a year ago)

Ive heard there was another disease that hit the feral pig population here in the southeast, as well as the deer. Not sure if it's causing a lot of animal deaths though. Evidently, the deer were vaccinated and boosted

Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

The data demonstrates:

1) The lockdowns didn't work, and in fact caused net negative damage thrusting 1-200 million people into extreme poverty globally.

2) The vaccines are ineffective especially with new variants.

3) Most mask used by most people aren't effective.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: putnam6

The data is in, the mandates must end.

Mandate Freedom.

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

18,000 studies done in the past two years on the global effects of COVID lockdowns?

a reply to: putnam6

Great, except that lockdown in the UK was publicly said to be about reducing sickness, not death.

They were extremely open about the fact that covid had a low mortality rate, but we're afraid that if too many people got sick it would overwhelm health care services.

Lockdown was about preventing the system from being overloaded. You couldn't move in the UK without hearing their Stay Home campaign.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

18,000 studies done in the past two years on the global effects of COVID lockdowns?

There is a question mark but I am not sure what the question is.

The 18,000 figure comes from the study linked in the OP.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

18,000 studies done in the past two years on the global effects of COVID lockdowns?

There is a question mark but I am not sure what the question is.

The 18,000 figure comes from the study linked in the OP.

Do podcast and straw polls count as studies?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

a reply to: ScepticScot

18,000 studies on lockdowns .... but were they studies done on the relevant lockdowns? You are basically assuming all 18,000 studies were conducted on COVID lockdowns over the course of the past couple of years.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

There are plenty of studies on the effectiveness or otherwise of lockdown. I don't think there is a firm conclusion either way. What I have seen seems to suggest that strict short term ones worked better than softer longer terms one as natural human behaviour tends to mitigate against their effectiveness as time goes on.

What I am saying with regard this particular study is it was done with a clear agenda and defining the selection criteria to 0.13% of the available studies then their conclusion shouldn't really surprise anyone.

With regard the world bank figure believe that was a prediction back in 2020 and talked about
overall impact of pandemic (and other factors), not the result of lockdown. While there has been a massive economic impact of vivid measures it's not that there was a zero cost option of ignoring it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

18,000 studies on lockdowns .... but were they studies done on the relevant lockdowns? You are basically assuming all 18,000 studies were conducted on COVID lockdowns over the course of the past couple of years.

Not assuming anything

.

This study
employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified
that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies
ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis

I suppose those studies could include research on Bulgarian dairy output in the 1950s but that seems unlikely.

My point is fairly simple. The study set out to establish what they already believed. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but would not accept the conclusions as definitive when there are plenty of alternative conclusions reached in other analysis.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

Yes, he is aware. If you haven't figured it out he is going to take the side of the powers that be and globalists no matter what evidence you provide. He's going to deny everything and provide zero proof every single time like he does in every single thread. At some point it's just spam.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

Yes, he is aware. If you haven't figured it out he is going to take the side of the powers that be and globalists no matter what evidence you provide. He's going to deny everything and provide zero proof every single time like he does in every single thread. At some point it's just spam.

If you prefer circle jerks there are plenty of sites out there to cater for that, both figuratively and literally.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

There are plenty of studies on the effectiveness or otherwise of lockdown. I don't think there is a firm conclusion either way. What I have seen seems to suggest that strict short term ones worked better than softer longer terms one as natural human behaviour tends to mitigate against their effectiveness as time goes on.

What I am saying with regard this particular study is it was done with a clear agenda and defining the selection criteria to 0.13% of the available studies then their conclusion shouldn't really surprise anyone.

With regard the world bank figure believe that was a prediction back in 2020 and talked about
overall impact of pandemic (and other factors), not the result of lockdown. While there has been a massive economic impact of vivid measures it's not that there was a zero cost option of ignoring it.

Incorrect, the supply chain and food chain disruptions, as well as economic destruction, were direct results of covid policies. The disease itself did not create widespread economic disruption. For example, in New York City 1/3 of small businesses closed permanently not due to "covid," but NYC covid policies.

Again, can you please link the studies supporting lockdown effectiveness in this context.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm asking for data and present day studies, not rhetoric.

Also, you can't use studies for diseases with substantially different characteristics, from transmision rates to lethality rates.

Excellent, so provide data and studies. For a "skepticscot," you seem to be quite unskeptical about warped covid narratives and policies, that on numerous occasions have failed or been proven inaccurate...

Or is it that you are only skeptical of skeptics and critics of those in power?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

Yes, he is aware. If you haven't figured it out he is going to take the side of the powers that be and globalists no matter what evidence you provide. He's going to deny everything and provide zero proof every single time like he does in every single thread. At some point it's just spam.

If you prefer circle jerks there are plenty of sites out there to cater for that, both figuratively and literally.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

Yes, he is aware. If you haven't figured it out he is going to take the side of the powers that be and globalists no matter what evidence you provide. He's going to deny everything and provide zero proof every single time like he does in every single thread. At some point it's just spam.

It's hard to say. I know personally so many brainwashed sheep that it takes me time to figure out if someone defending power and covid narratives is one of the sheep, or maliciously misrepresenting issues.

originally posted by: Madviking
Excellent, so provide data and studies. For a "skepticscot," you seem to be quite unskeptical about warped covid narratives and policies, that on numerous occasions have failed or been proven inaccurate...

Or is it that you are only skeptical of skeptics and critics of those in power?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking
Can you please provide those "18,000 studies" that demonstrate that the lockdowns were effective?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Libertarian economist who has consistently opposed lockdown picks 24 studies out of over 18,000 done and reaches conclusion that he was right all along.

Shocked I am!!!!!

I didn't say that over 18,000 studies showed it was effective. I said they selected 24 studies out of over 18,000 done.

That is in the paper linked in the OP.

You know exactly what I meant. Can you provide a literature review of the effectiveness of the lockdowns? You said the 24 studies were cherry picked out of 18,000, implying the other ones had a supportive view of the lockdowns.

Are you aware that there is a large host of other data probably not even in most of these studies, suggesting a net negative cost-benefit analysis. For example, World Bank and World Food Programme data showed up to 150 million new people being thrust into extreme poverty globally due to the impacts of covid, i.e. economic destruction, lockdowns, supply chains, etc. Most people don't know that, then get on their high horse regurgitating the most basic mainstream media talking points in support of the lockdowns.

Yes, he is aware. If you haven't figured it out he is going to take the side of the powers that be and globalists no matter what evidence you provide. He's going to deny everything and provide zero proof every single time like he does in every single thread. At some point it's just spam.

If you prefer circle jerks there are plenty of sites out there to cater for that, both figuratively and literally.

Sceptical of taking a single study and pronouncing lockdown were useless when there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary.


www.thelancet.com...(20)30984-1/fulltext

//www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9338


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.frontiersin.org...