This Is News

[Kathianne]

https://www.google.com/search?q=jama+covid+meta+johns+hopkins&oq=jama+covid+meta+analysisjoh&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33i10i160l4.25278j0j4&client=tablet-android-samsung-nf-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

It's a pdf. Right now with my search It's the top hit. Apparently it's being ignored. Anyways, in case Google sinks it, the pdf is found on Krieger.

[revelarts]

from link
"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."

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

[Kathianne]

from link
"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."

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
Yep, conclusive summary sentence.

[Gunny]

Yep, conclusive summary sentence.Here's where there's a disconnect for me:

One contracts covid, or not, and one dies from covid, or not.

One contracts covid, or not, based on frequency and/or duration of exposure to covid. Science, math and logic dictate that if one is "locked down" (isolated), the odds of contracting covid (from a host/carrier) are lessened by the amount/duration of isolation. Conversely, the odds increase as does exposure/duration.

That's a stand alone topic.

Isolation is detrimental to mental health. Tried and true, proven over centuries by every civilization known to have existed. Long before covid or any other "plague"/virus. Isolation is used/abused in our society almost exclusively by authorities.

Another stand alone topic.

Where the two meet is "we" (Man) have ALWAYS isolated infectious people as a means of stopping the spread of infection. Another centuries-proven method of deterrence.

None of these rules change due to personal, political, or socio-economic belief.

Where I DO agree is the conclusion. I do not believe hiding from a contagion is worth the damage isolation can do to mental health. As far as socio-economics go, the current administration and people who put it in power are a bigger threat to society and our economy than the Wuhan flu.

[fj1200]

Here's where there's a disconnect for me:

One contracts covid, or not, and one dies from covid, or not.

One contracts covid, or not, based on frequency and/or duration of exposure to covid. Science, math and logic dictate that if one is "locked down" (isolated), the odds of contracting covid (from a host/carrier) are lessened by the amount/duration of isolation. Conversely, the odds increase as does exposure/duration.

That's a stand alone topic.

Isolation is detrimental to mental health. Tried and true, proven over centuries by every civilization known to have existed. Long before covid or any other "plague"/virus. Isolation is used/abused in our society almost exclusively by authorities.

Another stand alone topic.

Where the two meet is "we" (Man) have ALWAYS isolated infectious people as a means of stopping the spread of infection. Another centuries-proven method of deterrence.

None of these rules change due to personal, political, or socio-economic belief.

Where I DO agree is the conclusion. I do not believe hiding from a contagion is worth the damage isolation can do to mental health. As far as socio-economics go, the current administration and people who put it in power are a bigger threat to society and our economy than the Wuhan flu.

True. The study starts out talking about mortality rates which in theory are not affected by lockdowns. However there is/was? the hope that lockdowns would keep it from spreading so less people were exposed. But long term it seems that it made little difference. The interesting part was later in the study it referenced "time to prepare" and how countries and states with little time to prepare had awful initial mortality rates (Italy, Spain, France, NY, NJ).

[Kathianne]

A bit more:

https://www.city-journal.org/new-study-finds-covid-lockdowns-had-no-benefit

[Gunny]

A bit more:

https://www.city-journal.org/new-study-finds-covid-lockdowns-had-no-benefit


A new study from Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Applied Economics supports what I and others have long maintained (https://www.city-journal.org/individual-choices-not-lockdowns):long term lockdowns do not work, and their economic, social, educational, and psychological costs far outweigh any health benefits they might bring.


Stated as such, including my "addition", I can agree with it.