Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 Johns Hopkins University

[volsrock]

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-19-deaths-/


But hey lets fuck up the economy

[volsrock]

Lockdowns had little to do with medicine but everything to do with Leftist exercise of political activism and tyranny.

[Legion]

The “lock downs” achieved what they were always meant to do disrupt the economy and cause the public to feel panicked and insecure.

You left out the motive.

[volsrock]

You left out the motive.

Hurt Trump

[goat]

History will not be kind to shitlibs.

[Yakuda]

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-19-deaths-/


But hey lets fuck up the economy

The people who advocated for them should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity.

[Yakuda]

IF YOU LOST YOUR JOB OR LOST MONEY IN THE MARKET BECAUSE OF THE PANIC, THIS IS THE MAN TO BLAME

From the failing Blue York Crimes:

March 16, 2020

Sweeping new federal recommendations announced on Monday for Americans to sharply limit their activities appeared to draw on a dire scientific report warning that, without action by the government and individuals to slow the spread of coronavirus and suppress new cases, 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

To curb the epidemic, there would need to be drastic restrictions on work, school and social gatherings for periods of time until a vaccine was available, which could take 18 months, according to the report, compiled by British researchers.

They cautioned that such steps carried enormous costs that could also affect people’s health, but concluded they were “the only viable strategy at the current time.”

That is because different steps, intended to drive down transmission by isolating patients, quarantining those in contact with them and keeping the most vulnerable apart from others for three months, could only cut the predicted death toll by half, the new report said.

The White House guidelines urged Americans to avoid gatherings of more than 10 people.

That is a more restrictive stance than recommendations released on Sunday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said that gatherings should be limited to 50.

The White House also recommended that Americans work from home, avoid unnecessary shopping trips and refrain from eating in restaurants. Some states and cities have already imposed stricter measures, including lockdowns and business closings.

Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

Asked at a news conference with President Trump about what had led to the change in thinking by a White House task force, Dr. Deborah Birx, one of the task force leaders, said new information had come from a model developed in Britain.

Dr. Birx’s description of the findings was consistent with those in the report, released on Monday by an epidemic modeling group at Imperial College London. The lead author of the study, Neil Ferguson, an epidemiology professor, said in an interview that his group had shared their projections with the White House task force about a week ago and that an early copy of the report was sent over the weekend.

The group has also shared its fatality estimates with the C.D.C., Dr. Ferguson said, including that eight to nine percent of people in the most vulnerable age group, 80 and older, could die if infected.

“It’s a difficult position for the world to be in,” he added.

The report, which was not released in a peer-reviewed journal but was authored by 30 scientists on behalf of Imperial College’s coronavirus response team, simulated the role of public health measures aimed at reducing contact.

“The effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on transmission,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ferguson said the potential health impacts were comparable to the devastating 1918 influenza outbreak, and would “kind of overwhelm health system capacity in any developed country, including the United States,” unless measures to reduce the spread of the virus were taken.

The White House task force did not respond to requests for comment. Officials stressed that the federal government’s restrictive new guidelines would be re-evaluated after 15 days, although they hinted that they were likely to be extended.

The study’s authors said their research made it clear that people in the United States might be advised to continue with draconian restrictions on their daily lives for far longer than Mr. Trump and the task force indicated on Monday.

“The major challenge of suppression,” the British scientists concluded, is the length of time that intensive interventions would be needed, given that “we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”

The authors said that so-called mitigation policies alone — isolating people suspected of having the virus at home, quarantining their contacts and separating the most vulnerable people from others — might reduce the peak demand on the health care system by two-thirds and deaths by half if applied for three months. But that would still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and in health systems “overwhelmed many times over,” they said.

This was why the authors also recommended measures to distance the entire population, such as school closures. Those interventions, they suggested, could be “relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows" and then reintroduced if new infections began growing.

The researchers said that the long-term “social and economic effects” were likely to be “profound,” and that the measures were not guaranteed to succeed and could themselves have “significant impact on health and well-being.”

“No public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time,” they added. “How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-fatality-rate-white-house.html

Hitler with a beard

[Legion]

Hitler with a beard

He had help - from DEMOCRATS.

Much of the public attention focused on his worst-case projection that there might as many as 2.2 million American and 500,000 British deaths, which was spread all over the US by a DEMOCRAT-run website called COVIDActNow.com and the media allies of the DEMOCRAT Party.

The DEMOCRAT-infested media failed to mention the caveat that this was “unlikely,” and based on the assumption that nothing was done to control it.

They also failed to tell you that Fergie's projections (which were not peer reviewed) were called reckless, baseless, and had been challenged by medical experts in epidemiology.

The scary-sounding report and accompanying carts and maps led to many governors, county commissions, and municipal officials shutting down their jurisdictions.

Under the flawed Imperial College model, the projection (which was a guess to begin with) was that the steps President Trump and the CDC had been taking would cut the number of projected deaths in half but still leave about a million Americans dead.

Then Fergie Ferguson (who ironically caught the Chinese disease himself and wasn't very sick at all) has "clarified" his estimates.

He eventually admitted to the British Parliament that he reckoned the number of deaths in formerly-great Britain, “would be unlikely to exceed 20,000”—and that many would be older people who would have died from other maladies. With the measures now in place, he confessed that Britain’s health service wouldn’t be overwhelmed, as he originally claimed.

It’s no secret that the press’s reputation has taken a credibility hit.

Nor is it any secret why: Instead of a presentation of what we know and don’t, too often the focus has been political scapegoating or sensationalizing.

On “CBS This Morning,” U.S. Surgeon-General Jerome Adams complained about a press that runs with projections “based on worst-case scenarios.”

Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the same regarding apocalyptic forecasts not backed by data.

There’s a moral here about mixing science and left-wing "journalism", but liberals are unlikely to heed it.

[archives]

Few variables “copy” and the Examiner, which as bad as it is is a step up from his usual InfoWars, Breitfart, and RT to name a few, left out from the actual study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fi...-Mortality.pdf)

“The ineffectiveness of lockdowns stemmed from individual changes in behavior”
Which as we all knew from day one, with Donnie politicalizing the virus, a good percentage of Americans never participated in any lockdown, in fact, did their best to sabotage what they could

“Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts”
True, and in some States, next to zero

“Lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of Covid-19, but the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely”
Especially when many were demagoging that they took away their “freedom”

“Timing is very important”
Also true, as shown in the gradual fading of lockdowns

Point being it isn’t as cut and dry as “copy” attempts to make it out to be, just look at the increased number of infections resulting from umpteen events such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Festival or Trump’s announcement of Barrett

[volsrock]

The purpose was to wreck the economy and blame Donald Trump. Fuck the small business man...how many have closed down for good because of this?

[Frank Apisa]

What a bunch of horse shit.

That's what should be expected from the Washington Times...as much a piece of garbage as Fox News. But, that kinds of garbage is porn for you twisted jerkoffs...and you probably whacked off while reading it.

The Johns Hopkins study found that "lockdowns" did reduce transmission of Covid.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2842WS

In the meantime, I am rooting for your side. I want to see your side do as little as possible to prevent your people from getting as much protection as possible.

[Celticguy]

History will not be kind to shitlibs.

if we've learned anything at all from this its that we MUST separate science and state.

politicized science is dangerous.

[Trumpet]

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-19-deaths-/


But hey lets fuck up the economy

Washington Times

Although the Washington Times has an extreme right editorial bias, they report straight news with a much lower bias. Therefore, we rate them right-center biased overall. We also rate them Questionable and factually mixed due to poor sourcing, holding editorial positions contrary to scientific consensus, and numerous failed fact checks.

Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

[Trumpet]

What a bunch of horse shit.

That's what should be expected from the Washington Times...as much a piece of garbage as Fox News. But, that kinds of garbage is porn for you twisted jerkoffs...and you probably whacked off while reading it.

The Johns Hopkins study found that "lockdowns" did reduce transmission of Covid.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2842WS

In the meantime, I am rooting for your side. I want to see your side do as little as possible to prevent your people from getting as much protection as possible.

volsrock is using questionable news sources for his reference as usual.

[LV426]

if we've learned anything at all from this its that we MUST separate science and state.

What led you to that conclusion?

Trump downplaying COVID to you while he secretly told Woodward in private that it was deadlier than the flu?

politicized science is dangerous.

Exactly, so when will the GOP stop politicizing science?