48 replies to this topic

[fib_1618]

Summary from Johns Hopkins research:

 

Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?”

 

We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.

 

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.

 

Here's the full paper from Johns Hopkins: https://tinyurl.com/yc3ee6d8

 

And you can add the wearing of masks, no less, being colluded to take a "vaccine" that might do more harm than good....especially to children.

 

Fib

[brucekeller]

Yeah I'm not super happy about the Bell's Palsy that I'll have to deal with for life anytime I get really stressed out or sick enough. It's basically herpes for the inside of my left ear and left side of face without the rash and I can't even sue the bastages.

[claire]

Summary from Johns Hopkins research:

 

Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?”

 

We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.

 

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.

 

Here's the full paper from Johns Hopkins: https://tinyurl.com/yc3ee6d8

 

And you can add the wearing of masks, no less, being colluded to take a "vaccine" that might do more harm than good....especially to children.

 

Fib

 

You haven't made clear that the authors are not affiliated with John Hopkins School of Medicine nor are they medically trained or science researchers. They are economists from, one of whom is affiliated with the Cato Institute. (Read "About the Authors.") This is not a publication from Hopkins. Also, you should point out that the part of their conclusion you quote refers only to mandated lockdowns. They opine that voluntary compliance with social distancing and other health protective measures may be 10x as effective as mandated lockdowns but that this is dependent on the level of voluntary compliance that differs in different parts of the world.  I wasn't able to quote the sections where this and other important nuances are detailed, but they are included in their Discussion section at the end of the paper.

[fib_1618]

Yeah I'm not super happy about the Bell's Palsy that I'll have to deal with for life anytime I get really stressed out or sick enough. It's basically herpes for the inside of my left ear and left side of face without the rash and I can't even sue the bastages.

 

Evidently, you're not the only one with Bell's according to the DOD regarding military related post vaccinated mandated pokes:

 

 

[linrom1]

Summary from Johns Hopkins research:

 

 

Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?”

 

We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.

 

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.

Here's the full paper from Johns Hopkins: https://tinyurl.com/yc3ee6d8

 

And you can add the wearing of masks, no less, being colluded to take a "vaccine" that might do more harm than good....especially to children.

 

Fib

When will the Twitter mob and wokes demand that Hanke get fired form his econ job at JH?

Edited by linrom1, 02 February 2022 - 10:20 AM.

[trioderob]

for once and for all guys 

 

YOU ARE NOT VIROLOGISTS 

 

YOU ARE NOT DOCTORS 

 

YOU ARE NOT experienced EXPERTS in infectious diseases !

 

you would not have represented yourself as such before the pandemic - why are you doing so now ?

 

you are a couple of characters on the internet who search on line  looking for anything that matches your agenda 

 

anything that does NOT meet your agenda is disregarded 

 

THIS IS A STOCK TRADING FORUM - IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE 

 

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE 

[fib_1618]

 

Summary from Johns Hopkins research:

Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?”

 

We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.

 

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.

Here's the full paper from Johns Hopkins: https://tinyurl.com/yc3ee6d8

 

And you can add the wearing of masks, no less, being colluded to take a "vaccine" that might do more harm than good....especially to children.

 

Fib

 

When will the Twitter mob and wokes demand that Hanke get fired form his econ job at JH?

 

They, like everyone who has fallen into this trap, can never admit they were wrong as to lose face and/or people start to question past agendas as to their credibility.

 

This is why when challenged, it's either thrown off as "misinformation", deleted, or labeled as racist or bigoted in an effort to keep the curtain from being raised.

 

Fib
 

[hhh]

"Misinformation" = accurate statements counter to the "jabs for all" agenda. 

[OEXCHAOS]

We are, almost to a man, all analysts. We're also all PAINFULLY aware that we can be wrong. So, frankly, most of us are more than qualified to evaluate the science and form conclusions and debate them. And nobody here (I would hope) would ever just presume anyone's opinion on anything covid related is the last word.

 

I allow this discussion because at first it was absolutely key to understand what was going to hit the economy and market. In fact, IMO, it was one of few times fundamental data was more useful than technicals. As time has gone on and so much censorship, malfeasance and malpractice has occurred, I want to provide a place to discuss the issues. Plus, there's always a chance that public policy will again damage the markets. I want us to be able to help each other get or stay one step ahead of events.

[hhh]

These people are virology and medical experts. I would really appreciate any attempt to counter what they present so I could hear the other side of the story: https://www.canadian...realliance.org/