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

originally posted by: Madviking

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.

Yes because because the only reason someone could have a different view is malice or being brainwashed.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If you look at the sources in my signature for the UK, which is independent of US politics, it shows that within a month of each relaxation of the lockdown there was a spike in people needing critical care, and in covid related deaths.

This demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between a relaxation of covid rules and an increase both deaths and serious sickness. The fact that there is a statistically significant delay between the relaxation of rules and a spike in deaths that is consistent with the average time between becoming sick with covid and dying (approximately 1 month), is inductivity of causation.

Or, to put things simple, the math is there.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

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.

Yes because because the only reason someone could have a different view is malice or being brainwashed.

Or money, don't forget money.

I've list track of the number of times on this forum that someone has either accused me of being paid by big Pharma to post content, or of being one of the people behind the vax in some way.

I have been hankering after some of that sweet sweet big pharmacy shill money since day one, but sadly no job offers yet.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh so you are assuming the criteria used were invalid? You base this off of what ... that the results returned did not yield your preferred outcome?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

A spike in critical care could also be caused by those who delayed care of other conditions due to being locked down.

Correlation is not always causation or not always the causation you assume.

a reply to: Irishhaf

According to this paper, SIPOs reduced mortality by 2.9% on average. I'm not a pro-lockdown folk but I did read the article.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh so you are assuming the criteria used were invalid? You base this off of what ... that the results returned did not yield your preferred outcome?

You could try actually reading my posts,since I specifically said it doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong.

The confirmation bias here is those uncritically accepting this reports conclusions as It supports the ATS preferred narrative.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AaarghZombies

A spike in critical care could also be caused by those who delayed care of other conditions due to being locked down.

Correlation is not always causation or not always the causation you assume.

If that were true we would expect the level of excess mortality to increae the longer lockdown went on.

In the UK at least the opposite is true.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The lockdown is like communism. Both are theories that look good on paper, but they are grossly impractical and unworkable outside the theoretical realm. There are too many variables, individual human beings, that simply cannot be controlled for.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

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.

Yes because because the only reason someone could have a different view is malice or being brainwashed.

Except, there is EXTENSIVE evidence that the lockdowns were not only ineffective, the cost benefit analysis is net negative in the extreme. It basicaly destroyed the global economy in many locations. 1-200 millions added to existing extreme poverty, etc. In some locations in the US, where there isn't extreme poverty really, still millions of jobs were lost and small businesses destroyed. In NYC something like 1/3 of small businesses are closed permanently, as one sample.

If we include the school shut downs, which we must, again this had tremendous negative impact on student learning and mental health. For low income students, who are already often behind several years in school, the impact is compounded.

People need to be held accountable for these policies. Those defending them need to be called out too, especially when provided with the counter evidence.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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...

Your lancet link is broken.

As far as the second, it states some locations were not positive, such as Europe. Secondly, this is from June 2020 not covering data since. It's a bit premature at 3 months in. Thirdly, it acknowledges the massive economic impacts, but the study itself is not assessing a cost-benefit analysis of all policies. Again, policy must be based on NET IMPACT, not isolated impact. We can create all manners of policies targeting specific issues and metrics, only to find that the unintended consequences are worse than the intended gain. Fourthly, is not the study in this thread about effect on mortality, not on case incidence or prevalence rates?

Website compilling impact of Covid policies

nypost.com...

nypost.com...

After a year of start-and-stop public-health measures, more often guided by intuition than by science, studies are confirming what economists long suspected: The COVID-19 lockdowns were an expensive, unnecessary failure — because they failed to account for individual responses to the pandemic.

Epidemiologists viewed lockdowns as the logical response to a new virus to which humans lacked immunity and that could overwhelm hospitals and cause many deaths. Yet health economists have long understood that people respond to incentives and alter their behaviors to avoid the risks and costs of infectious diseases. Epidemiologists failed to account for these voluntary changes in assessing what would happen without a lockdown.

The influential Imperial College of London model was typical. In March 2020, it predicted an exponential growth of cases that would overwhelm ICU bed capacity by April and cause 2.2 million US deaths by July. The authors recommended prolonged lockdowns until vaccines became available.

The model grossly overpredicted deaths because of critical errors, including an unrealistically high infection-fatality rate. Most important, its predictions were based on the “unlikely” scenario that there would be no changes in individual behavior.

The model used a reproduction number, or Rt, the average number of secondary infections that each infected person produces in a susceptible population, that was too high and, contrary to standard epidemiological practice, didn’t vary over time. In fact, Rt declines as people voluntarily avoid contact with others and as the number of recovered people no longer susceptible to infection grows.

The Imperial College model also assumed that hospital and ICU capacity was fixed and unchangeable. But hospitals voluntarily adapted to increasing COVID hospitalizations by limiting their elective procedures and redirecting assets. Instances of US hospitals reaching, let alone exceeding, capacity were rare.

In fact, there is little correlation between deaths and the imposition or severity of lockdowns, whether in US states or abroad. Sweden, criticized for its light restrictions, saw fewer cumulative deaths per million population (1,443) than did the European Union (1,648), the US (1,812) and Britain (1,888).

Florida, condemned for fully lifting restrictions too early (September 2020), and Texas, accused of “Neanderthal thinking” for fully lifting restrictions in March 2021, have registered lower deaths per 100,000 than states with stringent, long-term restrictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and Illinois.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

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.

Yes because because the only reason someone could have a different view is malice or being brainwashed.

Except, there is EXTENSIVE evidence that the lockdowns were not only ineffective, the cost benefit analysis is net negative in the extreme. It basicaly destroyed the global economy in many locations. 1-200 millions added to existing extreme poverty, etc. In some locations in the US, where there isn't extreme poverty really, still millions of jobs were lost and small businesses destroyed. In NYC something like 1/3 of small businesses are closed permanently, as one sample.

If we include the school shut downs, which we must, again this had tremendous negative impact on student learning and mental health. For low income students, who are already often behind several years in school, the impact is compounded.

People need to be held accountable for these policies. Those defending them need to be called out too, especially when provided with the counter evidence.

You can of course show this extensive cost benefit analysis.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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...

Your lancet link is broken.

As far as the second, it states some locations were not positive, such as Europe. Secondly, this is from June 2020 not covering data since. It's a bit premature at 3 months in. Thirdly, it acknowledges the massive economic impacts, but the study itself is not assessing a cost-benefit analysis of all policies. Again, policy must be based on NET IMPACT, not isolated impact. We can create all manners of policies targeting specific issues and metrics, only to find that the unintended consequences are worse than the intended gain. Fourthly, is not the study in this thread about effect on mortality, not on case incidence or prevalence rates?

Website compilling impact of Covid policies
nypost.com...

nypost.com...

After a year of start-and-stop public-health measures, more often guided by intuition than by science, studies are confirming what economists long suspected: The COVID-19 lockdowns were an expensive, unnecessary failure — because they failed to account for individual responses to the pandemic.

Epidemiologists viewed lockdowns as the logical response to a new virus to which humans lacked immunity and that could overwhelm hospitals and cause many deaths. Yet health economists have long understood that people respond to incentives and alter their behaviors to avoid the risks and costs of infectious diseases. Epidemiologists failed to account for these voluntary changes in assessing what would happen without a lockdown.

The influential Imperial College of London model was typical. In March 2020, it predicted an exponential growth of cases that would overwhelm ICU bed capacity by April and cause 2.2 million US deaths by July. The authors recommended prolonged lockdowns until vaccines became available.

The model grossly overpredicted deaths because of critical errors, including an unrealistically high infection-fatality rate. Most important, its predictions were based on the “unlikely” scenario that there would be no changes in individual behavior.

The model used a reproduction number, or Rt, the average number of secondary infections that each infected person produces in a susceptible population, that was too high and, contrary to standard epidemiological practice, didn’t vary over time. In fact, Rt declines as people voluntarily avoid contact with others and as the number of recovered people no longer susceptible to infection grows.

The Imperial College model also assumed that hospital and ICU capacity was fixed and unchangeable. But hospitals voluntarily adapted to increasing COVID hospitalizations by limiting their elective procedures and redirecting assets. Instances of US hospitals reaching, let alone exceeding, capacity were rare.

In fact, there is little correlation between deaths and the imposition or severity of lockdowns, whether in US states or abroad. Sweden, criticized for its light restrictions, saw fewer cumulative deaths per million population (1,443) than did the European Union (1,648), the US (1,812) and Britain (1,888).

Florida, condemned for fully lifting restrictions too early (September 2020), and Texas, accused of “Neanderthal thinking” for fully lifting restrictions in March 2021, have registered lower deaths per 100,000 than states with stringent, long-term restrictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and Illinois.

Your links are opinion pieces, not studies.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You can of course show this extensive cost benefit analysis.

Its late I am tired and maybe misreading things...

BUT are you really implying the worlds economy didnt get flushed down the loo?

Heading to bed so wont have a reply till tomorrow.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot

You can of course show this extensive cost benefit analysis.

Its late I am tired and maybe misreading things...

BUT are you really implying the worlds economy didnt get flushed down the loo?

Heading to bed so wont have a reply till tomorrow.

A cost benefit analysis is exactly that, how do the benefits of an action weigh against the costs. How do the health benefits (lives saved, reduced hospitalization etc) stack against the costs (economic, mental health impact etc).

A big caveat is it isn't really designed for looking at scenarios this complex and on health outcomes is inevitably subjective.

Would also point out that both UK and US are back to pre pandemics GDP levels. That is a far from perfect measure of the overall economic impact but it does show some of the.more outlandish claims about destroying the economy were false.

I've already referenced the extreme poverty, extensive economic destruction, retardation of millions of childrens' learning, mental health and developmental impacts on children, loss of freedom globally, etc. Not to mention, we have seen a huge transfer of wealth during covid. Millions of people lost their jobs and small businesses, while money was funneled to major corporations and billionaires. The data shows that the richest got richer during Covid and all these policies.

The lethality rate was about 99.5% including high risk people before the vaccines. Only 5% of Covid deaths in the US were due solely to covid. 95% of covid deaths in the US had an average of FOUR other causes, per the CDC. If we were to remove those, the death rate falls drastically, and the survival rate was more like 99.99%. My understanding is that other data from many other countries such as Italy matches these figures roughly.

See my other post in response about the additional cost-benefit analysis with the Covid data model failures and policies not based on science and data.

I CAN provide the data on all those points, but at some point all of these are known. Do you disagree with any of the stated facts above?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

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.

Yes because because the only reason someone could have a different view is malice or being brainwashed.

Except, there is EXTENSIVE evidence that the lockdowns were not only ineffective, the cost benefit analysis is net negative in the extreme. It basicaly destroyed the global economy in many locations. 1-200 millions added to existing extreme poverty, etc. In some locations in the US, where there isn't extreme poverty really, still millions of jobs were lost and small businesses destroyed. In NYC something like 1/3 of small businesses are closed permanently, as one sample.

If we include the school shut downs, which we must, again this had tremendous negative impact on student learning and mental health. For low income students, who are already often behind several years in school, the impact is compounded.

People need to be held accountable for these policies. Those defending them need to be called out too, especially when provided with the counter evidence.

You can of course show this extensive cost benefit analysis.

That is false, the gdp and economy especially globally have not recovered to the same levels, full stop. Many businesses were destroyed that will never come back. Across the world, and in the US, there are still severe supply chain disruptions.

These policies were profoundly destructive, and most of them were ineffective for their stated intent.

Virtually all of the data models used to justify them, were false early on and are false now.

Let's take the mask mandates STILL being pushed in many locations. Those are not supported by science. The social distancing rules were largely also not based on science, especially the six foot rule. The pernicious school shutdowns, which again are still being pushed in some locations, were absolutely rejected based on the science and data.

The lockdowns were justified using an extremely overexaggerated model that has now been acknowledged as so, including higher case and death counts. In spring 2020 they were claiming a 3-4% death rate which I could see from my data background likely wasn't accurate. Again, the model used to justify these original actions, was found to be inaccurate.

So if the negative impact is profound and widespread, and the data models used to justify these draconian measures were false, and the measures themselves are marginally effective at best, at some point you have to admit these were ill advised.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot

You can of course show this extensive cost benefit analysis.

Its late I am tired and maybe misreading things...

BUT are you really implying the worlds economy didnt get flushed down the loo?

Heading to bed so wont have a reply till tomorrow.

A cost benefit analysis is exactly that, how do the benefits of an action weigh against the costs. How do the health benefits (lives saved, reduced hospitalization etc) stack against the costs (economic, mental health impact etc).

A big caveat is it isn't really designed for looking at scenarios this complex and on health outcomes is inevitably subjective.

Would also point out that both UK and US are back to pre pandemics GDP levels. That is a far from perfect measure of the overall economic impact but it does show some of the.more outlandish claims about destroying the economy were false.

Actually, they cite a lot of data and evidence, if you had happened to read them which I assume you did not.

Your first study was premature, being from what May 2020, and only discussed case incidence rate not lethality rate, hence was not directly relevant. They also mentioned that in some locations such as Europe, the lockdowns were not effective either.

Your second link was broken.

Your third study only looked at Lebanon.

You mentioned "cherry picking," this appears to be "cherry picked data."

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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...

Your lancet link is broken.

As far as the second, it states some locations were not positive, such as Europe. Secondly, this is from June 2020 not covering data since. It's a bit premature at 3 months in. Thirdly, it acknowledges the massive economic impacts, but the study itself is not assessing a cost-benefit analysis of all policies. Again, policy must be based on NET IMPACT, not isolated impact. We can create all manners of policies targeting specific issues and metrics, only to find that the unintended consequences are worse than the intended gain. Fourthly, is not the study in this thread about effect on mortality, not on case incidence or prevalence rates?

Website compilling impact of Covid policies
nypost.com...

nypost.com...

After a year of start-and-stop public-health measures, more often guided by intuition than by science, studies are confirming what economists long suspected: The COVID-19 lockdowns were an expensive, unnecessary failure — because they failed to account for individual responses to the pandemic.

Epidemiologists viewed lockdowns as the logical response to a new virus to which humans lacked immunity and that could overwhelm hospitals and cause many deaths. Yet health economists have long understood that people respond to incentives and alter their behaviors to avoid the risks and costs of infectious diseases. Epidemiologists failed to account for these voluntary changes in assessing what would happen without a lockdown.

The influential Imperial College of London model was typical. In March 2020, it predicted an exponential growth of cases that would overwhelm ICU bed capacity by April and cause 2.2 million US deaths by July. The authors recommended prolonged lockdowns until vaccines became available.

The model grossly overpredicted deaths because of critical errors, including an unrealistically high infection-fatality rate. Most important, its predictions were based on the “unlikely” scenario that there would be no changes in individual behavior.

The model used a reproduction number, or Rt, the average number of secondary infections that each infected person produces in a susceptible population, that was too high and, contrary to standard epidemiological practice, didn’t vary over time. In fact, Rt declines as people voluntarily avoid contact with others and as the number of recovered people no longer susceptible to infection grows.

The Imperial College model also assumed that hospital and ICU capacity was fixed and unchangeable. But hospitals voluntarily adapted to increasing COVID hospitalizations by limiting their elective procedures and redirecting assets. Instances of US hospitals reaching, let alone exceeding, capacity were rare.

In fact, there is little correlation between deaths and the imposition or severity of lockdowns, whether in US states or abroad. Sweden, criticized for its light restrictions, saw fewer cumulative deaths per million population (1,443) than did the European Union (1,648), the US (1,812) and Britain (1,888).

Florida, condemned for fully lifting restrictions too early (September 2020), and Texas, accused of “Neanderthal thinking” for fully lifting restrictions in March 2021, have registered lower deaths per 100,000 than states with stringent, long-term restrictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and Illinois.

Your links are opinion pieces, not studies.