CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns in

[Legion]

Yep Nancy Pelosi did the same thing in San Francisco.

DEMOCRAT de Blasio admitted that his administration told Blue York Shitty inmates not to wear masks to prevent the spread of the Chinese disease because he knew that the selfish, entitled liberals he represents would buy all the masks, and then he couldn't blame President Trump for a shortage.

DEMOCRAT De Blasio confessed during a radio interview. “The concern throughout was, we didn’t want a situation where people were taking supplies, surgical masks,” DEMOCRAT de Blasio bleated bewilderingly.


https://www.wnyc.org/story/ask-mayor-040320/

 

[ExpressLane]

Here's the study, totally useless giving her the link anyway she's brain-dead.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...onas+Herby+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=rNyHyHBvM1gJ

Pota Potty chemicals have damaged her brain.

 

[Legion]

I remember:

DEMOCRAT presidential nominee Joe Biden now backs restrictions on travel from China — two months after President Trump put them into place to stem the spread of the coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan, China.

Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said on CNN on Friday that the former vice president “supports travel bans that are guided by medical experts, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy.”

“Science supported this ban, therefore he did, too,” Bedingfield said.

On Jan. 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global health emergency of international concern. The same day, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the first time confirmed person-to-person spread of the Wuhan virus and applauded WHO’s decision. And also that same day, Trump created the White House Coronavirus Task Force to coordinate U.S. efforts regarding the new disease.

The next day, on Jan. 31, the president declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued a travel ban between the United States and China.

Campaigning in Iowa that day, Biden criticized Trump’s China travel ban, saying, “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.”

On Feb. 1, Biden again criticized Trump for the move.

“We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency,” he wrote on Twitter.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-endorses-trumps-china-travel-restrictions-two-months-late

 

[Legion]

Billy knew:

Decisions made weren't based on models, they were based on obtaining a set of results, and 'data' was found to justify it. That's how all political decisions are made.

 

[Legion]

The models are bullshit based on bad data - no "math" can hide that fact

The whole lockdown was based on bullshit:

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

Here we are. Three weeks (at least, depending upon where you are) into what amounts to house arrest.

Stores are told what products they can and cannot sell.

A father has been handcuffed and arrested for playing with his daughter in a deserted park.

People are being fined for walking on vacant beaches.

Businesses have been shuttered.

The economy has been trashed. Our concept of civil liberties and the permissible use of the state’s police power have been irrevocably moved in the direction of totalitarianism.

There is literally no end in sight.

So it is fair to ask how we got here.

In a word: models.

The Wuhan virus frenzy really began in earnest when Neil Ferguson published the results of a simulation he’d run on the public health impact of the virus.

In it he predicted that some 2 million Americans would die from the virus.

The impact of this paper can’t be overstated. The British and Dutch governments were stampeded from pursuing what amounted to a “ride it out” strategy (which, in my view, was the only strategy even vaguely related to either science or common sense) into throwing the emergency brake on economic activity.

Once one model was accepted, other proliferated.

Perhaps the most notable one has been that from the Institution for Health Metrics and Evaluation. This one, like the non-factual Imperial College model, has produced Doomsday results that led to panicked governors believing they had to ‘do something’ by shutting down most economic activity.

These models have one unifying feature.

They were all wildly and spectacularly implausible and are all being proven wildly and spectacularly wrong on a daily basis.



They are also all being promoted by a DEMOCRAT-run website (https://covidactnow.org/) that bombards state, county and local governments with scary "data" on a daily basis to prolong the panic for political purposes.




https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/04/09/815099/

 

[Stone]

Remember this?

Sure do.

 

[Concart]

Trump did NOT lockdown the country.

The states and individual communities were the ones that locked down.

Show us all then where Trump 'locked down' ANY part of America?

Stop whining, Rocket Man. Instead, take five minutes away from your massive ego and figure out why I posted what I did. You can do it. I believe in you, Mr. Big Brain.

Oh, and by the way:

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/government/trump-calls-shutdown-until-april-30

Come back when you are ready to say something intelligent. Thanks.

 

[ExpressLane]

Just mock the poor old bat. I do.

She loves to lick toilet seats. The crustier the better.

 

[Legion]

Never forget - always save the receipts:

Thomas Bossert, who was once point man for pandemics on the National Security Council, predicted a month ago that we were only 10 days away from our hospitals being overwhelmed.

So, over the next 2 weeks, we could see another 12,000-14,000 deaths for NY State alone (about half of those from NYC). I think it will be lower. I hope it will be. Even so, I don’t know how a healthcare system even the size of NY’s can cope.

— Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) April 2, 2020

He was relying upon data from one of these models for that bit of stupidity, but, alternatively, maybe he’s just not very bright.

 

[Legion]

She loves to lick toilet seats. The crustier the better.

Meh. She's crap-flooding. Best to chuckle and ignore her.

 

[McRocket]

Stop whining, Rocket Man. Instead, take five minutes away from your massive ego and figure out why I posted what I did. You can do it. I believe in you, Mr. Big Brain.

Oh, and by the way:

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/government/trump-calls-shutdown-until-april-30

Come back when you are ready to say something intelligent. Thanks.

Says the person whom makes a 100% erroneous statement and has not got the courage to admit it.
Once again....

You typed:
'Why did that fucking idiot Trump lock down the country?'


Did Trump ACTUALLY lockdown, ANY part of America?

Yes or no?

 

[Legion]

The lockdowns were precipitated by fear based on "models" and promoted by DEMOCRATS

Total recall:

Now that the models are being proven to be nonsense, an industry is springing up to defend them.

One of the better ones is this from The Atlantic, Don’t Believe the COVID-19 Models; That’s not what they’re for.

"The most important function of epidemiological models is as a simulation, a way to see our potential futures ahead of time, and how that interacts with the choices we make today. With COVID-19 models, we have one simple, urgent goal: to ignore all the optimistic branches and that thick trunk in the middle representing the most likely outcomes. Instead, we need to focus on the branches representing the worst outcomes, and prune them with all our might. Social isolation reduces transmission, and slows the spread of the disease. In doing so, it chops off branches that represent some of the worst futures. Contact tracing catches people before they infect others, pruning more branches that represent unchecked catastrophes.

At the beginning of a pandemic, we have the disadvantage of higher uncertainty, but the advantage of being early: The costs of our actions are lower because the disease is less widespread. As we prune the tree of the terrible, unthinkable branches, we are not just choosing a path; we are shaping the underlying parameters themselves, because the parameters themselves are not fixed. If our hospitals are not overrun, we will have fewer deaths and thus a lower fatality rate. That’s why we shouldn’t get bogged down in litigating a model’s numbers. Instead we should focus on the parameters we can change, and change them."

It is a great example of kernels of truth being used to justify bullshit projections that have devastated family finances without demonstrably proving that they saved a single life.

 

[Legion]

Sure do.

Remember this?

Nearly two weeks ago Fergie Ferguson, an epidemiologist with Imperial College London, issued a report on the Chinese disease.

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 liberal-infested media filed 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.

Now Fergie Ferguson (who ironically has the Chinese disease himself and isn't very sick at all) has "clarified" his estimates. He admitted to the British Parliament this week that he now reckons 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 this year. With the measures now in place, he believes Britain’s health service won’t be overwhelmed, as he originally claimed.

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

This week 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.

 

[ExpressLane]

BTY


fox lied you to war in Iraq


Fox lied to you about the oncoming economic crash in 2008



They keep lying to you idiots and you keep watching


Idiots

Whatabout Whatabout Whatabout

 

[archives]

A

There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.

According to a Johns Hopkins Universitymeta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.

"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," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."

It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
=====================================================

The science does not fit their narrative.

This is like the fourth time we’ve seen this post, and it was debunked in the first go around, if you read the actually study, not Fox’s framing of the study, but the study itself, you’d find that there were four variables that explained how the researches arrived at this conclusion, none of which are applicable to the scenario you are implying

 

[Legion]

The science does not fit their narrative.

Remember, lockdowns, magic masks, and juju juice jabs are all completely unnecessary.

The Xi variant, hilariously renamed "Omicron" to avoid offending bungling Biden (and the WHO's) boss, is everywhere, so magic masks, lockdowns, and juju juice jabs make no difference.

Doubtless the DEMOCRATS are desperate to keep the fear alive, for obvious reasons, but it's not working.

 

[ExpressLane]

Remember, lockdowns, magic masks, and juju juice jabs are all completely unnecessary.

The Xi variant, hilariously renamed "Omicron" to avoid offending bungling Biden (and the WHO's) boss, is everywhere, so magic masks, lockdowns, and juju juice jabs make no difference.

Doubtless the DEMOCRATS are desperate to keep the fear alive, for obvious reasons, but it's not working.

Hillary was ahead of her time I guess.

 

[Legion]

The paper from Johns Hopkins University, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality,” compares several dozen studies of the impact of lockdown measures in the early part of the pandemic.

The authors conclude that “lockdowns have had little or no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

This review of basically all the relevant studies demolishes the entire justification for ruinous lockdowns.

The authors, hailing from Denmark, Sweden, and the U.S. sifted through thousands of studies to focus on 34 that met their search criteria, looking at lockdowns all around the world.

They then compared the data and conclusions.

The paper starts by noting that “an often cited model simulation study by researchers at the Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020)) predicted that a suppression strategy based on a lockdown would reduce COVID-19 mortality by up to 98%.”

The Imperial College simulation was among the sources used by public-health authorities to justify the earliest lockdowns.

It turned out to be more than 98 percent wrong.





https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/the-great-lockdown-lie/

 

[Legion]

Hillary was ahead of her time I guess.

According to the authors, the most-precise studies found no statistically significant effect of lockdowns on mortality.

Looking at the 24 studies from which excess mortality rates could be calculated in comparison to a standardized metric for severity of lockdowns, the authors estimated that severe lockdowns may have reduced Covid-19 mortality by perhaps 2 percent.

That amounts to perhaps 1/20th the number of people who die from the flu every year, and to save people from the flu, our public-health authorities resort to little beyond facilitating the provision of flu shots.

But on further investigation, the impact appears to have been even smaller than that.

“Indeed, according to stringency index studies, lockdowns in Europe and the United States reduced only COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

In summary, “Based on the stringency index studies, we find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates.”

Some studies actually found that lockdowns increased Covid-19 mortality, particularly in the case of the most severe “shelter in place” lockdowns: “Although this appears to be counterintuitive, it could be the result of an (asymptomatic) infected person being isolated at home under a [shelter-in-place order] can infect family members with a higher viral load causing more severe illness.”


https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/the-great-lockdown-lie/

 

[Legion]

The authors found similar results for mask mandates, though the relevant studies were more contradictory, likely due to small sample sizes. (The study reviews lockdowns in the early pandemic, when mask mandates were not uniformly adopted).

The much richer data set from other airborne influenzas found that “wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask.”


https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/the-great-lockdown-lie/