COVID Lockdown Impact Study

Ozzie_Isaac

I suspect this will be buried soon, so read ot before it disappears from the interwebz.

TL:DR Lockdowns had negligable impact on mortality rates, but lockdowns had massive negative social and economic impacts.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/

Gulfcoastguy

Nice article. 

JohnInCarolina

Isn't the impact on mortality rates kind of obvious?  That refers to the number of people who got infected by covid actually dying from it.  It's not really all that surprising that lockdowns wouldn't impact that percentage. 

What lockdowns do impact is the percentage of people who get infected in the first place.  

I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding the work here, but I don't see what the big deal is.  

dmchicago

Totally unbiased publication, for sure.

JohnInCarolina

dmchicago said:

Totally unbiased publication, for sure.

The Moonie Times isn't your daily read? 

Ozzie_Isaac

Peer reviewed and published study?  Conclusion the paper is drawing is biased, or the study was biased?

I am genuinely curious.  I do not have access to the study itself.  My understanding was that areas like California that had strict lockdowns had no better/worse transmission rates than areas like AZ with little to no lockdown.  Seems like that is the same conclusion the study made.  Lockdowns do not stop the virus.

Edit:. Found the study.  It is linked in the article.

Ozzie_Isaac

Abstract from 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. 

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.

JohnInCarolina

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Peer reviewed and published study?  Conclusion the paper is drawing is biased, or the study was biased?

I am genuinely curious.  I do not have access to the study itself.  My understanding was that areas like California that had strict lockdowns had no better/worse transmission rates than areas like AZ with little to no lockdown.  Seems like that is the same conclusion the study made.  Lockdowns do not stop the virus.

Edit:. Found the study.  It is linked in the article.

It is not peer reviewed.  It is "published" on a website, here:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/working-papers/studies-in-applied-economics/

This is not a real journal.  It's just a repository for members of the institute to post their own work online.  In other words, they are recycling their own trash.

Gulfcoastguy

dmchicago said:

Totally unbiased publication, for sure.

Sourced from John Hopkins?

Kayak

If only there was a country somewhere, that imposed strict lockdowns and had a significantly better outcome than the US. Then we might have an actual case to study, instead of a meta review... Hmmm. Nope, can't think of a one.

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Peer reviewed and published study?  Conclusion the paper is drawing is biased, or the study was biased?

I am genuinely curious.  I do not have access to the study itself.  My understanding was that areas like California that had strict lockdowns had no better/worse transmission rates than areas like AZ with little to no lockdown.  Seems like that is the same conclusion the study made.  Lockdowns do not stop the virus.

Edit:. Found the study.  It is linked in the article.

It is not peer reviewed.  It is "published" on a website, here:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/working-papers/studies-in-applied-economics/

This is not a real journal.  It's just a repository for members of the institute to post their own work online.  In other words, they are recycling their own trash.

That site is a rabbit hole of interesting articles!

JohnInCarolina

Ozzie_Isaac said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Peer reviewed and published study?  Conclusion the paper is drawing is biased, or the study was biased?

I am genuinely curious.  I do not have access to the study itself.  My understanding was that areas like California that had strict lockdowns had no better/worse transmission rates than areas like AZ with little to no lockdown.  Seems like that is the same conclusion the study made.  Lockdowns do not stop the virus.

Edit:. Found the study.  It is linked in the article.

It is not peer reviewed.  It is "published" on a website, here:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/working-papers/studies-in-applied-economics/

This is not a real journal.  It's just a repository for members of the institute to post their own work online.  In other words, they are recycling their own trash.

That site is a rabbit hole of interesting articles!

Well you can just go there in the future, instead of waiting to find out about this sort of thing on Facebook.  I'm sure they update it regularly.

The lead author is also a great follow for you on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1488223882720985090?s=20&t=04wn1zpActJ2JuzJFu6JfA

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Peer reviewed and published study?  Conclusion the paper is drawing is biased, or the study was biased?

I am genuinely curious.  I do not have access to the study itself.  My understanding was that areas like California that had strict lockdowns had no better/worse transmission rates than areas like AZ with little to no lockdown.  Seems like that is the same conclusion the study made.  Lockdowns do not stop the virus.

Edit:. Found the study.  It is linked in the article.

It is not peer reviewed.  It is "published" on a website, here:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/working-papers/studies-in-applied-economics/

This is not a real journal.  It's just a repository for members of the institute to post their own work online.  In other words, they are recycling their own trash.

That site is a rabbit hole of interesting articles!

Well you can just go there in the future, instead of waiting to find out about this sort of thing on Facebook.  I'm sure they update it regularly.

The lead author is also a great follow for you on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1488223882720985090?s=20&t=04wn1zpActJ2JuzJFu6JfA. 

Oh wow.  Not really unbiased there.  Btw, this wasn't from FB.  It was from a mich better aggregator of news. You may have heard of Matt Drudge from the Bill Clinton fiasco, but it was from: The Drudge Report.

JohnInCarolina

Shall we call this a lesson learned?  

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

Shall we call this a lesson learned?  

One of these days, I will be right and will have a solid defendable source.  That day is not today.

EzraBrooks

Ozzie_Isaac said:

I suspect this will be buried soon, so read ot before it disappears from the interwebz.

TL:DR Lockdowns had negligable impact on mortality rates, but lockdowns had massive negative social and economic impacts.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/

Thanks for posting, Joe Rogan.

Botch

Fun Fact:  Joe Rogan supported Bernie Sanders for President.  

caliking

Skimmed the abstract, and this caught my eye:

 Ozzie_Isaac said:

Abstract from Study:
... 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. ...

~3% reduction in mortality is a BFD. I don't understand why they would minimize it. 

Sweden caught a lot of flak for not imposing any lockdown type measures. Then its death rate turned out to be significantly higher than its neighbors. Its leaders publicly acknowledged that their policies had failed. Then, they started up with some lockdown-ish measures.

The authors may have a point though. I don't think lockdowns directly impact mortality, per se. Their goal is to mitigate spread.

Random example - a town with one hospital can likely better  handle 15 patients with varying severity of COVID vs. 80 patients. If lockdowns can slow the spread of infection, that hospital has a better chance of coping with the load. Eventually, the community is better for it. 

HighHeat

Kill em all and let God sort em out

jmikol0208

Can't we keep crap that has nothing to do with Big Green Eggs out? Are are plenty of other avenues to spread crap. I come here for info on grilling. Not cancel culture when you bring in stuff not appropriate for the forms topic.

dmchicago

jmikol0208 said:

Can't we keep crap that has nothing to do with Big Green Eggs out? Are are plenty of other avenues to spread crap. I come here for info on grilling. Not cancel culture when you bring in stuff not appropriate for the forms topic.

Battleborn

jmikol0208 said:

Can't we keep crap that has nothing to do with Big Green Eggs out? Are are plenty of other avenues to spread crap. I come here for info on grilling. Not cancel culture when you bring in stuff not appropriate for the forms topic.

So…you purposefully came to section that was marked as off topic and away from the main forum page and then clicked on a thread that, by the title, you can clearly tell is not BBQ or BGE related to say that you don’t want to read an off topic post that is in the off topic category? Sounds legit. 

caliking

Battleborn said:

jmikol0208 said:

Can't we keep crap that has nothing to do with Big Green Eggs :out? Are are plenty of other avenues to spread crap. I come here for info on grilling. Not cancel culture when you bring in stuff not appropriate for the forms topic.

So…you purposefully came to section that was marked as off topic and away from the main forum page and then clicked on a thread that, by the title, you can clearly tell is not BBQ or BGE related to say that you don’t want to read an off topic post that is in the off topic category? Sounds legit. 

littlerascal56

Welcome to the friendliest place on earth! Ignore the trolls, which you will recognize very quickly!

Legume

There was always one kid at school that didn’t really have any friends.  He was always the first one to buddy up to any new kid to tell them how much everyone else was mean.  That usually lasted a day or two until people wised up.