• 2020 Lockdowns Under Trump Didn't Work - New Study By Economists

    From Wi1liam T@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 4 21:06:26 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics
    XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.politics, alt.atheism
    XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion, alt.global-warming
    XPost: alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, alt.checkmate

    I get all my healthcare from rightwing economists.

    "New study: lockdowns didn’t work; A new study from Johns Hopkins
    Institute for Applied Economics destroys big-government arguments for lockdowns"

    <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4034144/posts>

    " little over a year ago, I wrote,

    [I]t is now clear that, whatever health risks the Wuhan virus presents,
    they pale in comparison to the social, mental, economic, and spiritual
    carnage wrought by the foolish political actions -- and subsequent
    foolish private actions -- that tragically followed the Wuhan virus into
    the U.S. As many warned, including President Trump, for the Wuhan virus,
    the “cure” has indeed been worse than the disease.

    In other words, most of the suffering in America today is not due to the
    Wuhan virus, but rather to our foolish and widespread reaction to the
    Wuhan virus. The shutdowns, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, and the
    like have done little to nothing to stem the tide of the Wuhan virus.
    Instead, these unwise measures have brought unprecedented suffering -- including stress, debt, financial ruin, depression, illness, and death --
    to tens of millions of Americans.

    “A Literature Review and Meta-analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on
    COVID-19 Mortality," a new “systematic review and meta-analysis” of
    numerous lockdown studies validates my -- and many others’ --
    conclusions. The study concludes that “lockdowns have had little to no
    effect on COVID-19 mortality.” Specifically, the study, published by
    Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, found that “lockdowns in
    Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs [‘shelter in place orders’] were also ineffective, only
    reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average.”

    Additionally, this study reveals that, while “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.” Again, more specifically, the authors note,

    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.

    For millions of us, this study reveals nothing that we didn’t already
    know. We didn’t need a study to reveal what our God-given wisdom and
    senses had long ago made clear to us. Whether our own personal
    experiences, the experiences of our family and friends, or what we well
    know about many politicians and government bureaucrats, since at least
    the summer of 2020 it has been clear that not only were lockdowns largely ineffective against the Wuhan Virus, they also were a widely devastating
    tool that those devoted to big government were only too eager to employ
    and too slow to abandon."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wi1liam T@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 10 19:53:55 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics
    XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.politics, alt.atheism
    XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion, alt.global-warming
    XPost: alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, alt.checkmate

    I get all my healthcare from rightwing economists.

    "New study: lockdowns didn’t work; A new study from Johns Hopkins
    Institute for Applied Economics destroys big-government arguments for lockdowns"

    <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4034144/posts>

    " little over a year ago, I wrote,

    [I]t is now clear that, whatever health risks the Wuhan virus presents,
    they pale in comparison to the social, mental, economic, and spiritual
    carnage wrought by the foolish political actions -- and subsequent
    foolish private actions -- that tragically followed the Wuhan virus into
    the U.S. As many warned, including President Trump, for the Wuhan virus,
    the “cure” has indeed been worse than the disease.

    In other words, most of the suffering in America today is not due to the
    Wuhan virus, but rather to our foolish and widespread reaction to the
    Wuhan virus. The shutdowns, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, and the
    like have done little to nothing to stem the tide of the Wuhan virus.
    Instead, these unwise measures have brought unprecedented suffering -- including stress, debt, financial ruin, depression, illness, and death --
    to tens of millions of Americans.

    “A Literature Review and Meta-analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on
    COVID-19 Mortality," a new “systematic review and meta-analysis” of
    numerous lockdown studies validates my -- and many others’ --
    conclusions. The study concludes that “lockdowns have had little to no
    effect on COVID-19 mortality.” Specifically, the study, published by
    Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, found that “lockdowns in
    Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs [‘shelter in place orders’] were also ineffective, only
    reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average.”

    Additionally, this study reveals that, while “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.” Again, more specifically, the authors note,

    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.

    For millions of us, this study reveals nothing that we didn’t already
    know. We didn’t need a study to reveal what our God-given wisdom and
    senses had long ago made clear to us. Whether our own personal
    experiences, the experiences of our family and friends, or what we well
    know about many politicians and government bureaucrats, since at least
    the summer of 2020 it has been clear that not only were lockdowns largely ineffective against the Wuhan Virus, they also were a widely devastating
    tool that those devoted to big government were only too eager to employ
    and too slow to abandon."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)