Strangely enough, Johns Hopkins buried this important study. They did not alert the press with a big press conference. I think I heard they did not even send out a press release under the university's banner.
It's almost like the official establishment knows that it has committed a grave, lethal error and does not want to draw attention to it.
Like it wants to hide its errors. Like it wants the public to continue believing bad science.
You know -- like real scientists always do!
"Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand," is the study's blunt topline finding.
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.
They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.
The conclusion: An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.
More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. "What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?"
We provide a firm answer to this question:
The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none. The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century.
However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.
These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best.
Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.
No comments:
Post a Comment