Follow the science, COVID lockdown edition:

[Mamushka]

Couple of excerpts from a new Johns Hopkins study about COVID lockdowns, pay particular attention to how strongly the conclusions are worded:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

From the abstract:
While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects,
they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In
consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy
instrument.

From the conclusion:
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.

So due to hysteria and ignorance (typically from blue states/cities and the press) we inflicted massive negative effects on almost all aspects of society... with no appreciable impact on COVID.

You can probably guess what "news" organizations are silent on this study.

[k7]

politics suck.

but at the most basic level, did anyone thing you can hide from covid?

it's here....to stay. and omnicron doesn't even care if you are masked or not.

even CDC guidlines/rules...you can go to a restaurant with a mask...but if you are sitting and eating, you can take it off. because, you know...covid doesn't attack
people who are sitting or eating. if you are a short person, you have nothing to worry about per the CDC. asscakes.


get it, and get over it.

[WannaTheater]

There are many rebuttals to that new Fox news bible.

Have a look at:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/feb/07/what-know-about-study-lockdowns-and-covid-19-death/

A study not endorsed by the university, even though being touted by Fox and its messengers as such.

Notable finds:

The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers

The paper’s authors — Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke — all come from an economics background. Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, has aired opinions about lockdowns and "fascist" vaccine policies on Twitter and has repeatedly elevated false claims about the pandemic. Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university.

Regarding ignorance of the blue states, read some of the covid data reports on the State of Mississippi’s department of health website.  #1 in covid death rate by state.  I think they are around #50 in vaccinations.

[Mamushka]

There are many rebuttals to that new Fox news bible.

Have a look at:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/feb/07/what-know-about-study-lockdowns-and-covid-19-death/

Look at the claims on the Politicfact website regarding Biden and Trump. I think if you look real close you may be able to see a bit of bias there...  If it's not obvious we can jump to their parent company, The Tampa Bay Times (TBT) and look at who they recommended for the 2020 elections: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/09/27/all-of-the-political-recommendations-of-the-times-editorial-board/
To save you a little time, the clear majority of the recommendations are Democrats.
One last bit of bias scrutiny: Here you can find who the TBT recommended for every presidential election since 1980: https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/ (Spoiler, they are 100% Dems)

BTW, the reason I'm pointing out the evidence of Politicfact aligning with Dems is that they are the political party that generally has been embracing the lockdowns.

A study not endorsed by the university, even though being touted by Fox and its messengers as such.

From your referenced article: "The university hasn’t taken a position on this and typically wouldn’t in such a situation," university spokesperson Jill Rosen wrote in an email.

So basically that the university did not endorse this paper is normal and expected. The politicfact article states in their: IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT section "The university did not endorse the study." This (heavily) suggest that the study was not endorsed for cause, a huge red flag about the honesty of the article.

Do you have the references of Fox saying the study was endorsed by Johns Hopkins? Not doubting you, would just like to read what you did.

The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers

I agree, and if you read the report, they never claimed to be medical researches, and indeed they did not perform any research. What they did do was to evaluate the results from many studies to see if the results started to paint a clear picture of the truth. Basically if a study had a bias it would get suppressed by the din of all the other studies.

The paper’s authors — Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke — all come from an economics background. Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, has aired opinions about lockdowns and "fascist" vaccine policies on Twitter and has repeatedly elevated false claims about the pandemic. Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university.

So clearly one of the authors has negative feelings for the lockdown. What about the other two? Any bias from them? I would guess if Politicfact could have dug up anything on them it would be prominent in the article (they literally have the Twitter screen shots of what Hanke wrote).

So here is my "fact check" of the article: It is real easy to find discrepancies in it. From your quote from the article: "Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university." Look at the very first sentence in the article (under "IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT"). Here is what it states: "A new paper by three economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University" that is followed a bit later with: "But the study is not definitive. The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" by three economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University."

So twice they claim they are affiliated, and another time they claim the opposite. That is a pretty sloppy miss.

[WannaTheater]

We can both debate at length reporting bias on both sides.  Two minutes of google will show multiple rebuttals to this "working paper."  I picked Politifact as it was at the top of the search results.  I found this one interesting, in which some of the criticisms of the paper are answered by one of the authors:
https://videnskab.dk/krop-sundhed/scientists-no-new-analysis-cannot-conclude-that-lockdowns-only-reduced-covid-deaths-by

So clearly one of the authors has negative feelings for the lockdown. What about the other two? Any bias from them?

From the following peer reviewed American Journal of Managed Care, which also presents rebuttal facts:
https://www.ajmc.com/view/controversial-paper-claims-covid-19-lockdowns-had-little-public-health-effect

Perhaps they ARE biased:

All 3 authors are also from Sweden and Denmark. Sweden famously decided not to implement any lockdowns and never mandated, only recommended, masks in public.

And perhaps they should have done some scientific research on Sweden's LACK of lockdown and correlation to Covid spread and death rate:

The country recorded more cases per capita and deaths than neighboring countries: Reported deaths were 3 times more than Denmark, 8 times more than Finland, and 10 times more than Norway.

Herby Jonas has also printed anti-lockdown info last year:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764553
His paper funded by CEPOS, another think tank, similar to CATO.

At the end of the day, if an economist wants to write about the impact of the lockdowns ON THE ECONOMY, supported by established research methods, cool.  But to write a report, based on data from other "selective" non-peer reviewed reports, while having no experience in virology, epidemiology, and infectious disease, and then to draw the extreme conclusions regarding lockdown impact on disease and transmission, is faulty.

[Mamushka]

It is honestly ridiculous that a "fact checking" site like Politicfact literally contradicts their first sentence in their article.  I would think that would put at least some doubt in your head when you read their next "fact check". You mentioned that Fox indicated the study was endorsed by the university:

A study not endorsed by the university, even though being touted by Fox and its messengers as such.

Can you provide the link to the Fox statement you read? I would honestly like to see how deceptive their reporting was.

After that I would like to unpack some of the other things you indicated.

 

[WannaTheater]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-lockdowns-johns-hopkins-study-debate
https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6295076597001#sp=show-clips

From the headlines, it is clearly implied (even stated), this is a "Johns Hopkins study."  ...Which is all that most readers will remember.  And repeat.
The video is the best example- It sure makes it seem that the university fully endorsed everything and stands behind the results.     
 
Politifact should have caught that.  But it doesn't make the rest of the article any less true.  And there are additional rebuttals out there, easily found.

[PinFever]

google this google that . read there read here,
 here is my take.
 I look at the world around me and Mask or no mask the same people who died would have.. No one would be worse sick or less sick regarding cleaning hands ,6 ft distance and mask or no mask ..   Was a Bunch of Scare tactics of a flu That had escaped from a lab .
Lab or no lab A flu manipulated or not does not need lockdowns or stupid social distancing except those who are sick. It has always been good to keep away from  sick people unless you are a care giver in which it is your job.


I have no fear from vaxed or unvaxed / People who did never have it or have had it once or more times.    I fear Not . I Do not like Govt / i do not like Fake Media and we got all but to much of both .. along with a shit ton of Karens