Johns Hopkins study on effectiveness of lockdowns

[HALL85]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/02/02/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns-n2602716

Need to read the whole study, but this is the first look back on effectiveness (or lack thereof). Starting to see unintended consequences of isolation (domestic abuse, drug overdoses, etc.).

 

[Pirata]

Starting to see unintended consequences of isolation (domestic abuse, drug overdoses, etc.).

Oh jeez....Merge is going to go bat guano on you for that one. LOL

I saw the study on the news this morning.

They said the impact was .2%. That equates to 1,800 less deaths do to Covid.

38,000 dead per year in auto accidents.

 

[knowknow456]

Help Townhall keep reporting the truth about Covid-19 and exposing leftists using new variants as an excuse for big government power grabs. Join TownhallVIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off VIP membership.

 

[Merge]

Oh jeez....Merge is going to go bat guano on you for that one. LOL

I saw the study on the news this morning.

They said the impact was .2%. That equates to 1,800 less deaths do to Covid.

38,000 dead per year in auto accidents.

Well, if I posted a study about health impacts from 3 guys who don't work in health but do work for liberal think tanks... I'll bet 85 would have a problem with that. No?

He's called out studies from people with no expertise in the field previously on this board (the psychiatrist with a study about vaccine mortality) so I'm not sure what is different this time other than these three economists from conservative think tanks have the same conclusion that he does.

It's not a "first look back on effectiveness" of lockdowns at all btw. There are many studies on that topic... and that's all this study is. A look at all of the studies and narrowing them down until they got the data they wanted to get.

I'm sure right leaning publicans will love to run with it based on the headline, but after a quick read through their conclusions and I do have some questions for sure.

 

[HALL85]

Well, if I posted a study about health impacts from 3 guys who don't work in health but do work for liberal think tanks... I'll bet 85 would have a problem with that. No?

He's called out studies from people with no expertise in the field previously on this board (the psychiatrist with a study about vaccine mortality) so I'm not sure what is different this time other than these three economists from conservative think tanks have the same conclusion that he does.

It's not a "first look back on effectiveness" of lockdowns at all btw. There are many studies on that topic... and that's all this study is. A look at all of the studies and narrowing them down until they got the data they wanted to get.

I'm sure right leaning publicans will love to run with it based on the headline, but after a quick read through their conclusions and I do have some questions for sure.

Like I said, I need to read the study. And yes, leaning journalists are going to put their spin on it. Heard it mentioned on the radio this morning. It’s a Hopkins study so you would think the actual numbers referenced would be legit.

Steven Hanke’s background does seem pretty impressive for “some guy”…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hanke

 

[Merge]

Like I said, I need to read the study. And yes, leaning journalists are going to put their spin on it. Heard it mentioned on the radio this morning. It’s a Hopkins study so you would think the actual numbers referenced would be legit.

I agree, I was interested when I saw it was from John Hopkins. The name carries some weight for sure. But the part where they say that lockdowns didn't work but closing non essential businesses worked didn't really seem to make much sense, so I looked up who the authors were and became a little skeptical.

Here is a similar study from people who are in the field field and they ended up with a different conclusion.

Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19

To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.We performed a system…

www.sciencedirect.com

Not saying any study is perfect, and we should look back at what worked and what didn't so we are better prepared for next time but the Johns Hopkins study (from economists) does not appear to be that strong so far.

 

[knowknow456]

Like I said, I need to read the study. And yes, leaning journalists are going to put their spin on it. Heard it mentioned on the radio this morning. It’s a Hopkins study so you would think the actual numbers referenced would be legit.

Steven Hanke’s background does seem pretty impressive for “some guy”…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hanke

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[HALL85]

I agree, I was interested when I saw it was from John Hopkins. The name carries some weight for sure. But the part where they say that lockdowns didn't work but closing non essential businesses worked didn't really seem to make much sense, so I looked up who the authors were and became a little skeptical.

Here is a similar study from people who are in the field field and they ended up with a different conclusion.

Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19

To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.We performed a system…

www.sciencedirect.com

Not saying any study is perfect, and we should look back at what worked and what didn't so we are better prepared for next time but the Johns Hopkins study (from economists) does not appear to be that strong so far.

I believe the references to non-essential businesses were bars, etc. How do you know the study does not appear strong? Have you read it? I haven’t so can’t say either way at this point. The author does appear to have legitimate credentials though.

 

[Merge]

I believe the references to non-essential businesses were bars, etc. How do you know the study does not appear strong? Have you read it? I haven’t so can’t say either way at this point. The author does appear to have legitimate credentials though.

Yes, I took a run through. Seems cherry picked and rationalizes throwing out disconfirming data to fit their pre conceived conclusion.

Also, just look at New Zealand. Obviously much easier to control bring an island, but their lockdowns completely prevented Covid deaths. Not sure how you can have any other conclusion there.

Yes, he is credentialed in economics for sure.

 

[cernjSHU]

Lockdowns had very little effect but closures of non-essential businesses did have a 10% effect. I’m a little confused. What’s the difference between a lockdown and closures of non-essential businesses? I would have thought that is a huge overlap.

 

[Merge]

Lockdowns had very little effect but closures of non-essential businesses did have a 10% effect. I’m a little confused. What’s the difference between a lockdown and closures of non-essential businesses? I would have thought that is a huge overlap.

Exactly. There is a huge overlap there and it's not easy to see how they distinguish that from other factors considering that they define lockdown as any non pharmaceutical intervention.

A lot of other problems in their study as well. They excluded countries with the most stringent covid rules. Nothing from Asia or Australia. They did reference one study from New Zealand which blamed lockdowns for increasing Covid deaths somehow because it didn't consider the fact that the lockdowns were imposed in Texas after the virus was spreading in the community in spring 2020... and didn't look at any subsequent study from New Zealand where it is obviously clear that Lockdowns limited Covid deaths.

The first study they reference in their eligible studies "Alderman and Harjoto" says their results were "Find that shelter-inplace orders are -for the average duration - associated with 1% (insignificant) fewer deaths per capita"

But if you look at that study, the conclusion reached was that the longer the lockdowns persist, the better the results were. They explicitly support longer lockdown periods if needed to curb transmission.

"our findings suggest that state and local government authorities should consider adopting shelter-in-place policies longer in the event of a second wave or a rampant rate of increase in COVID-19 cases."

So yeah... this Johns Hopkins study is problematic.
That's not going to stop conservatives from running with it though.

 

[ed odowd]

He disagrees with Fauci and Fauci represents science so he must be anti science .Fauci and his mistakes are becoming the butt of jokes but as long as he keeps the political line that Biden wants he stays.Rand Paul the opthmalogust seems to know more about what constitutes change of function research than Tony. Fauci video clip claiming lockdowns saved millions of lives is going to be in the classic library of medical erroneous statements .

 

[HALL85]

Exactly. There is a huge overlap there and it's not easy to see how they distinguish that from other factors considering that they define lockdown as any non pharmaceutical intervention.

A lot of other problems in their study as well. They excluded countries with the most stringent covid rules. Nothing from Asia or Australia. They did reference one study from New Zealand which blamed lockdowns for increasing Covid deaths somehow because it didn't consider the fact that the lockdowns were imposed in Texas after the virus was spreading in the community in spring 2020... and didn't look at any subsequent study from New Zealand where it is obviously clear that Lockdowns limited Covid deaths.

The first study they reference in their eligible studies "Alderman and Harjoto" says their results were "Find that shelter-inplace orders are -for the average duration - associated with 1% (insignificant) fewer deaths per capita"

But if you look at that study, the conclusion reached was that the longer the lockdowns persist, the better the results were. They explicitly support longer lockdown periods if needed to curb transmission.

"our findings suggest that state and local government authorities should consider adopting shelter-in-place policies longer in the event of a second wave or a rampant rate of increase in COVID-19 cases."

So yeah... this Johns Hopkins study is problematic.
That's not going to stop conservatives from running with it though.

There's a lot in that study as they compiled 18,000 sources and went through the process of distilling them down to about a 1,000 to analyze. I'm no expert in study design (and I don't think you are either), so I'm not at the point of agreeing with their conclusions or dismissing them as "problematic". I'd like to talk to someone who does this for a living to see if they are following a logical process to aggregate information. Aren't you cherry-picking items to make your case, much like the conservative outlets are doing?

 

[Merge]

Aren't you cherry-picking items to make your case, much like the conservative outlets are doing?

I'm offering a criticism after reading it.

That's why you posted it here, right? To have a discussion about it?
I think you are capable of critical thinking and would be able to recognize some flaws with their argument. It's a bit of a cop out to post it here and then not talk about what it says.

The main question I had as I read it was wondering why Australia and New Zealand were left out of their analysis. I'd argue those countries went to far, but I think it is also blatantly obvious that their restrictions prevented Covid deaths.

There are a ton of studies regarding their response and the impacts their measures had on Covid mortality. None of them met the distilling criteria?

Sorry, this is a study from conservative think tank economists and they distilled until they had the answer they wanted and apparently ignored a lot of disconfirming data.

 

[HALL85]

I'm offering a criticism after reading it.

That's why you posted it here, right? To have a discussion about it?
I think you are capable of critical thinking and would be able to recognize some flaws with their argument. It's a bit of a cop out to post it here and then not talk about what it says.

The main question I had as I read it was wondering why Australia and New Zealand were left out of their analysis. I'd argue those countries went to far, but I think it is also blatantly obvious that their restrictions prevented Covid deaths.

There are a ton of studies regarding their response and the impacts their measures had on Covid mortality. None of them met the distilling criteria?

Sorry, this is a study from conservative think tank economists and they distilled until they had the answer they wanted and apparently ignored a lot of disconfirming data.

He's actually a Libertarian.

Getting a little sensitive? Once again, I'm not an expert on study design, but the walk through the rationale of why studies were included or not. It did not strike me as political.

I also don't see anything is his past that he does take hard line political views. As we get further away from the pandemic, we'll have more data that will help us learn. No different than the initial claims that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved because of the lockdown. There wasn't hard data to support that. The author is submitting his conclusions based on a review of thousands of studies. I would be interested to see how experts will respond to his findings.

 

[Merge]

He's actually a Libertarian.

Getting a little sensitive? Once again, I'm not an expert on study design, but the walk through the rationale of why studies were included or not. It did not strike me as political.

I also don't see anything is his past that he does take hard line political views. As we get further away from the pandemic, we'll have more data that will help us learn. No different than the initial claims that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved because of the lockdown. There wasn't hard data to support that. The author is submitting his conclusions based on a review of thousands of studies. I would be interested to see how experts will respond to his findings.

Just pointing out that you have had issues with a psychiatrist's study on vaccine mortality, and rightfully so... but you don't have the same inclination to have an issue with a public health study from economists. Hard not to see a bit of a contradiction there and wonder why that would be other than you agreeing with this study but not agreeing with the other one.

They didn't review thousands of studies. They narrowed down to 34, and as I pointed out previously when I looked into the studies the were using they were misrepresenting the results of that study.

Sure you can wait for experts to weigh in, but I don't think it is unreasonable to want an assessment of the impacts lockdowns had on mortality to include outcomes in the countries with the most stringent lockdowns.

I don't think the 0.2% is an honest assessment of the impacts from imposed restrictions.
New Zealand has had 53 Covid deaths. This implies that they would have had maybe 54 without the lockdowns? You don't need to be an expert on study design to realize that is an absurd conclusion.

 

[HALL85]

Just pointing out that you have had issues with a psychiatrist's study on vaccine mortality, and rightfully so... but you don't have the same inclination to have an issue with a public health study from economists. Hard not to see a bit of a contradiction there and wonder why that would be other than you agreeing with this study but not agreeing with the other one.

They didn't review thousands of studies. They narrowed down to 34, and as I pointed out previously when I looked into the studies the were using they were misrepresenting the results of that study.

Sure you can wait for experts to weigh in, but I don't think it is unreasonable to want an assessment of the impacts lockdowns had on mortality to include outcomes in the countries with the most stringent lockdowns.

I don't think the 0.2% is an honest assessment of the impacts from imposed restrictions.
New Zealand has had 53 Covid deaths. This implies that they would have had maybe 54 without the lockdowns? You don't need to be an expert on study design to realize that is an absurd conclusion.

Did I say I agreed with the study? I think I was pretty clear on my position when I posted this. You obviously want tointerpret my position in your own pretzel twisting way.

Everything I have read about the author is that he is highly credentialed and accomplished. Does he have a history of misrepresenting information like you are accusing him? He raises some interesting points that I’m sure other experts will weigh in on or continue to study.

 

[Pirata]

Help Townhall keep reporting the truth about Covid-19 and exposing leftists using new variants as an excuse for big government power grabs. Join TownhallVIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off VIP membership.

Pedestrian attempt to discredit the paper.

Nice try. Thanks anyway for posting the promotion.

News of this study was posted on numerous websites. The OP just happened to pick Townhall to get the link. Yeah, they are conservative.

If you want an intelligent critique of the article, try this:

expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website | Science Media Centre

www.sciencemediacentre.org

We should probably wait for the peer reviews.

 

[Merge]

Did I say I agreed with the study? I think I was pretty clear on my position when I posted this. You obviously want tointerpret my position in your own pretzel twisting way.

Lol... Come on. Of course you agree with it. That's why you posted it. It supports your position on the topic.
Just be honest about it.

I have no issue with the authors specifically. As I said, I went through a quick read and had some questions.
Read it more thoroughly and in my opinion, there are some flaws. I mentioned the most glaring in my opinion which is leaving out countries with strict lockdowns and few deaths.

Another for example - their 0.2% calculation is based on a weighted adjustment to the calculation and is pretty much based off of 1 study which is weighted so heavily that without it, the estimate becomes 3.5%. Almost 20x higher.

That one study, Chisadza et al. (2021), looks at 144 different countries and concludes that developed countries mortality improves more than less developed countries.

"The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths. In addition, the authors of found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus.

...However, it appears that the overall conclusion drawn from these findings is that it comes down more to the severity of the intervention measures implemented, particularly the closure and public awareness policies, which are key in slowing down the spread of the virus and related deaths."

The study that they weigh the most out of any other study disagrees with the premise here and is only such a low percentage overall because it includes less developed countries.

 

[knowknow456]

I'm not an expert on study design,

Don't you have an expert on study design in your famously large rolodex?

 

[HALL85]

Pedestrian attempt to discredit the paper.

Nice try. Thanks anyway for posting the promotion.

News of this study was posted on numerous websites. The OP just happened to pick Townhall to get the link. Yeah, they are conservative.

If you want an intelligent critique of the article, try this:

expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website | Science Media Centre

www.sciencemediacentre.org

We should probably wait for the peer reviews.

News Nation also reported on it and they are more middle of the road than the Jersey Barrier. They didn’t seem to have a problem with the credentials.

 

[HALL85]

Lol... Come on. Of course you agree with it. That's why you posted it. It supports your position on the topic.
Just be honest about it.

I have no issue with the authors specifically. As I said, I went through a quick read and had some questions.
Read it more thoroughly and in my opinion, there are some flaws. I mentioned the most glaring in my opinion which is leaving out countries with strict lockdowns and few deaths.

Another for example - their 0.2% calculation is based on a weighted adjustment to the calculation and is pretty much based off of 1 study which is weighted so heavily that without it, the estimate becomes 3.5%. Almost 20x higher.

That one study, Chisadza et al. (2021), looks at 144 different countries and concludes that developed countries mortality improves more than less developed countries.

"The findings suggest that the implementation of less strict intervention measures is not effective in reducing the number of deaths, whereas interventions at higher levels of severity reduce deaths. In addition, the authors of found that the greater the strength of government interventions is at an early stage, the more effective the interventions are in decreasing or reversing the mortality rate. Findings from also suggest that higher government stringency is a key predictor for the cumulative number of cases. Therefore, quick and early action by the government in imposing strict measures is important in slowing down the spread of the virus.

...However, it appears that the overall conclusion drawn from these findings is that it comes down more to the severity of the intervention measures implemented, particularly the closure and public awareness policies, which are key in slowing down the spread of the virus and related deaths."

The study that they weigh the most out of any other study disagrees with the premise here and is only such a low percentage overall because it includes less developed countries.

Lol… now I know I won the argument. You can respond to what I wrote so you have to respond to what you think I my position is.

The methodology they use is quite complex, so I’m happy to buy you a beer so you can explain why they included studies and omitted others. You must have expertise in study design so I’m willing to give a listen.

Early on, if you recall I suggested that highly restrictive lockdowns were appropriate when we did identify a patient only to buy us time, Since we were getting no information from China or WHO. Think about what 2-3 months would have meant to testing and vaccine development and deployment. But once the spread became widespread, it then became a priority to manage our system capacity. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask if lockdowns helped or exacerbated that.

I also used the Health ministry of Sweden as an example. They kept their economy open, stressed using common sense approaches in distancing, with no mask mandate. The vast majority of their fatalities were in nursing homes where they admitted that they should have taken steps to protect. They did not operate in a contentious manner.

The authors have published a detailed study that raises questions that should be challenged rather than dismissed because you think they are a right wing group which they are clearly not.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

He disagrees with Fauci and Fauci represents science so he must be anti science .Fauci and his mistakes are becoming the butt of jokes but as long as he keeps the political line that Biden wants he stays.Rand Paul the opthmalogust seems to know more about what constitutes change of function research than Tony. Fauci video clip claiming lockdowns saved millions of lives is going to be in the classic library of medical erroneous statements .

Rand Paul, that guys a joke. Can we start a fund for his neighbor to kick his ass again? Maybe a UFC match? 😁

 

[Merge]

The methodology they use is quite complex, so I’m happy to buy you a beer so you can explain why they included studies and omitted others. You must have expertise in study design so I’m willing to give a listen.

They explain that in the study well enough.

They only focus on impacts from lockdowns on mortality in difference in difference approach studies. That inherently limits their analysis regarding what the impact from restrictions actually was.
If a study just analyzed the impact on hospitalizations for example, it would be excluded from their consideration entirely.

When you read through their reasoning for exclusions, it really seems like some of it is arbitrary and not looking for a correct answer but the answer they want, and again the weight of that one survey compared to others was >90% of their estimate. Seems odd. They said they excluded studies when a study excluded mortality even though some of their exclusions did cover mortality, and included some studies because they met their difference-in-difference approach requirements even though that was not the approach in the study.

I had questions when I read it, and the more I looked into it, he more it seemed that the data was trimmed to meet their conclusion. Honestly, if you were personally writing a paper on this topic, would you want to include or exclude Australia and New Zealand? Two developed counties with extreme lockdown measures and very few covid deaths. Of course you would.

Early on, if you recall I suggested that highly restrictive lockdowns were appropriate when we did identify a patient only to buy us time, Since we were getting no information from China or WHO. Think about what 2-3 months would have meant to testing and vaccine development and deployment. But once the spread became widespread, it then became a priority to manage our system capacity. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask if lockdowns helped or exacerbated that.

Of course, but there are so many studies on this topic which compare the measures to transmission, hospitalizations and deaths already, and most that I have seen have a very different conclusion than the one reached here and there were so many studies on

The authors have published a detailed study that raises questions that should be challenged rather than dismissed because you think they are a right wing group which they are clearly not.

I have not dismissed it. I challenged what they were saying.

As Pirata posted, there are some others offering critiques now and hopefully it gets peer reviewed.

 

[HALL85]

They explain that in the study well enough.

They only focus on impacts from lockdowns on mortality in difference in difference approach studies. That inherently limits their analysis regarding what the impact from restrictions actually was.
If a study just analyzed the impact on hospitalizations for example, it would be excluded from their consideration entirely.

When you read through their reasoning for exclusions, it really seems like some of it is arbitrary and not looking for a correct answer but the answer they want, and again the weight of that one survey compared to others was >90% of their estimate. Seems odd. They said they excluded studies when a study excluded mortality even though some of their exclusions did cover mortality, and included some studies because they met their difference-in-difference approach requirements even though that was not the approach in the study.

I had questions when I read it, and the more I looked into it, he more it seemed that the data was trimmed to meet their conclusion. Honestly, if you were personally writing a paper on this topic, would you want to include or exclude Australia and New Zealand? Two developed counties with extreme lockdown measures and very few covid deaths. Of course you would.



Of course, but there are so many studies on this topic which compare the measures to transmission, hospitalizations and deaths already, and most that I have seen have a very different conclusion than the one reached here and there were so many studies on



I have not dismissed it. I challenged what they were saying.

As Pirata posted, there are some others offering critiques now and hopefully it gets peer reviewed.

Isn’t that what I was suggesting? Other experts to weigh in on it?

 

[knowknow456]

Why would a lockdown have an effect on mortality? If you caught Covid during a lockdown, the mortality rate should be the same as someone who who caught the virus outside of a lockdown. The lockdown was to reduce transmission rates, not mortality rates.

 

[Pirata]

Why would a lockdown have an effect on mortality?

Consider it this way:

Would more people have died if we didn't do the lockdowns?

The study is suggesting the answer to that is 0.2%

 

[Merge]

Consider it this way:

Would more people have died if we didn't do the lockdowns?

The study is suggesting the answer to that is 0.2%

Yep, and put into real numbers…
Without Covid restrictions, Australia would have had 9 additional deaths resulting in 157 deaths per million
New Zealand would have had 1 resulting in 11 deaths per million.

Yet Sweden with very few restrictions is 10x higher in deaths per million than Australia and 150x higher than New Zealand?

Really shouldn't take an expert to tell you that this study probably has some issues.

 

[HallBall02]

A far right friend texted this article to me super early on Monday morning so I’m guessing it is circulating through many “covid is a cold type” friendly silos.

No fan of lock downs but this is fuzzy math for sure with lots of confounders, variables for each situation in a “lockdown”. Not to mention the definition of lock down and what are they comparing it to? Is it vs No mitigation efforts, some, virtual shift already in place at school or work?, masking level, level of transmission in area, which variant, testing? Accuracy of deaths being reported. The Time period is super important (knowledge level of virus now compared to April 2020 means more likely good outcomes), % of vaccinated? availability of vaccines and treatments, staffing at hospitals, beds available.

From a “real world” retrospective meta analysis, this all has to be analyzed.

bottom line, anybody looking at .2 and thinking this is a real number is drinking.

 

[HallBall02]

Also this is not from the view of John hopkins public health or Johns Hopkins medicines. When you see, “even Johns Hopkins is saying” when in one of the first statements it says, this is the views of individual authors and not school.

Either way, Johns Hopkins has a separate business school, Carey School of business (not that great esp when compared to #1 ranked school of public health) . I assume these authors, who have almost nothing connected to medicine or public health, are affiliated with that that business school.

 

[Merge]

o fan of lock downs but this is fuzzy math for sure with lots of confounders, variables for each situation in a “lockdown”. Not to mention the definition of lock down and what are they comparing it to?

Any restriction imposed by the government was considered a lockdown.

Lockdown = lockdown
Gathering limits = lockdown
Masks = lockdown

"We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above"

bottom line, anybody looking at .2 and thinking this is a real number is drinking.

Yeah, the number is clearly incorrect especially when the study mentions that 10.6% reduction from just closing non essential businesses. Somehow adding more factors reduces that number to nothing?
Not going to stop the antigovernment folk from running with the headline though.

 

[HallBall02]

I hope the JH Carey School of business also does a meta analysis that compares level of emphasis a Governor put into getting their constitutes vaccines in arms (once fully available) compared to death rates per capita in state.

the relative risk and absolute risk reductions on death and hospitalizations for those govs more aggressive with vaccines… I have a feeling is going to be dramatic.

 

[HallBall02]

Any restriction imposed by the government was considered a lockdown.

Lockdown = lockdown
Gathering limits = lockdown
Masks = lockdown

"We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above"



Yeah the number is clearly incorrect especially when the study mentions that 10.6% reduction from just closing non essential businesses. Somehow adding more factors reduces that number to nothing?
Not going to stop the antigovernment folk from running with the headline though.

Yeah, I saw the KPI.

Any mandate as a “lockdown” is kinda extreme. If let’s say a state or county, let’s say Delaware, had a mandate on just postal workers, does that mean the whole state/county is considered to have a mandate? Even though more than 99% of other citizens had 0 “lockdown” So therefor all mortality rates from hospitals in DE should be reported to strengthen or weaken argument?

Or how do they adjust data to account for what I internally call “the A-hole factor.” A politician strongly pushes to do something to mitigate spread/deaths and he/she JUST stops short of any mandate most citizens comply without being forced with mandate.

Then you have a governor do the opposite. Some areas with high community spread will have lot of A-holes proudly not masking where others will have a vast majority in public settings still masking even without mandate protecting one another.

Confounders from businesses stepping up and doing the right thing, mandates at work, shift to virtual, mask policies at work? Vaccine requirements from work. All not included even when government “shutdowns” not in affect?

If they looked at true lockdowns, for instance can’t leave house, no physical or virtual school, government closing businesses, etc. Then I think it would be a good study to look at without as much confounders.

 

[SHUSA]

amazing how these "studies" always start with the point they want to make anyway. self verifying studies that have major simple flaws. again merge exposes this board doesnt have any clue on how to interpret data.

every study has a motive unless it aligns with their opinions lol

 

[HALL85]

amazing how these "studies" always start with the point they want to make anyway. self verifying studies that have major simple flaws. again merge exposes this board doesnt have any clue on how to interpret data.

every study has a motive unless it aligns with their opinions lol

What are you talking about? These author is an accomplished and has credentials that far exceed anyone on this board combined with no history of biased studies. Merge is the expert at exposing his flaws? lol

 

[shu09]

amazing how these "studies" always start with the point they want to make anyway. self verifying studies that have major simple flaws. again merge exposes this board doesnt have any clue on how to interpret data.

every study has a motive unless it aligns with their opinions lol

The only thing I've learned about Merge on this thread is that he politicizes everything he can.

 

[SHUSA]

What are you talking about? These author is an accomplished and has credentials that far exceed anyone on this board combined with no history of biased studies. Merge is the expert at exposing his flaws? lol

you can back into any conclusion you want to with these studies.

 

[HALL85]

you can back into any conclusion you want to with these studies.

Shows you know very little about research but carry-on.

 

[SHUSA]

Shows you know very little about research but carry-on.

and you can carry on ignoring merges points that prove these studies are always self serving. its not about the data its about how you measure it.

 

[HALL85]

and you can carry on ignoring merges points that prove these studies are always self serving. its not about the data its about how you measure it.

I’ll wait for the peer review.