concha Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdown-catastrophe-11643833939 Government disease doctors and politicians around the world panicked in the face of Covid and began shutting down societies in early 2020. The accounting has hardly begun on the impact of isolating human beings, denying them opportunities, education and experiences—not to mention disrupting non-Covid medical treatments and myriad other valuable services—and then attempting to simulate the benefits of a functioning society by printing fiat money. It will take years to understand the full cost of this man-made catastrophe, But emerging research suggests that on the other side of the ledger, public health benefits were extremely small, if they can be verified at all. Johns Hopkins economist Steve Hanke and colleagues from Denmark and Sweden report the results of their new study: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. 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. 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. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. Interesting stuff. It will be fascinating to see if this is taken into account by governmental powers-that-be and if it has any effect on our politics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badrouter Posted February 3, 2022 Report Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 hour ago, concha said: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdown-catastrophe-11643833939 Government disease doctors and politicians around the world panicked in the face of Covid and began shutting down societies in early 2020. The accounting has hardly begun on the impact of isolating human beings, denying them opportunities, education and experiences—not to mention disrupting non-Covid medical treatments and myriad other valuable services—and then attempting to simulate the benefits of a functioning society by printing fiat money. It will take years to understand the full cost of this man-made catastrophe, But emerging research suggests that on the other side of the ledger, public health benefits were extremely small, if they can be verified at all. Johns Hopkins economist Steve Hanke and colleagues from Denmark and Sweden report the results of their new study: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. 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. 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. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. Interesting stuff. It will be fascinating to see if this is taken into account by governmental powers-that-be and if it has any effect on our politics. My guess is the leftists will move to dismiss this on the grounds that it was completed by economists. They’ll be said to have biases and an agenda. As if the radical public health activists seeking to remake society through an “equity lens” don’t have their own biases and agenda 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.