ADVERTISEMENT

Johns Hopkins study on effectiveness of lockdowns

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

Expert at exposing his flaws specifically? no.
My expertise is reading longer form contracts / valuations / accounting position memos etc, poking holes in them and sending a list of questions for the authors to address. Exposing flaws is what I do for a living, and my work has resulted in fairly material adjustments from people way more qualified than I am.

I don't care if you trust my judgement or not, but it would have been nice if you at least read the study enough to discuss it.
 
The only thing I've learned about Merge on this thread is that he politicizes everything he can.

It's honestly sad that you think that.

The fact is that this study argues the opposite of what the far majority of studies on this topic have concluded.
All I did was read it and try to understand why. None of my criticisms in the study are political at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Expert at exposing his flaws specifically? no.
My expertise is reading longer form contracts / valuations / accounting position memos etc, poking holes in them and sending a list of questions for the authors to address. Exposing flaws is what I do for a living, and my work has resulted in fairly material adjustments from people way more qualified than I am.

I don't care if you trust my judgement or not, but it would have been nice if you at least read the study enough to discuss it.
Your resume has nothing to do with this but nice try. You like to cherry-pick to dismiss a study, which is your right. I've read the study and it raises some interesting points and the authors have appeared to done an extensive analysis of available studies. I've also indicated that the methodology/study design is quite complex and difficult to assess. It's out there and has been picked up by news sources and is open to criticism and challenge by peers. There is nothing in his background that indicates that he takes a bias view to start (even though you tried to pigeon hole him as a right-wing think tanker- but you don't get political, right?).

We are going to look back continuously to determine if the lockdowns and restrictions (when they were imposed and duration) really had any measurable impact. We don't have a clear answer on that yet. Then factor in the long term collateral damage with mental health sickness and death.
 
here is nothing in his background that indicates that he takes a bias view to start

Why do you think that? He has been complaining about lockdowns for two years now.
You don't think that would indicate a biased view?

We are going to look back continuously to determine if the lockdowns and restrictions (when they were imposed and duration) really had any measurable impact. We don't have a clear answer on that yet.

Yep, that is true... but there are so many studies on this topic already. Even meta analysis reviews on the topic. Yet you didn't post any of those here. Only this one. Why is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUSA
Why do you think that? He has been complaining about lockdowns for two years now.
You were wrong about his affiliation and think tank...now he's been "complaining for two years"? I think he ranks a bit higher on the credibility meter than you at this point....
 
It's honestly sad that you think that.

The fact is that this study argues the opposite of what the far majority of studies on this topic have concluded.
All I did was read it and try to understand why. None of my criticisms in the study are political at all.

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.

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

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.

Not going to stop the antigovernment folk from running with the headline though.

Four posts in this thread with digs at those who don't have your political persuasion. It's quite clear you have politicized this. You have rejected the study because of politics.
 
You were wrong about his affiliation and think tank...now he's been "complaining for two years"? I think he ranks a bit higher on the credibility meter than you at this point....

I called it a conservative think tank... They are a libertarian think tank. Really not that different and the point is the same. Yes, he has been complaining about lockdowns for two years.
 
Four posts in this thread with digs at those who don't have your political persuasion. It's quite clear you have politicized this. You have rejected the study because of politics.

No. I criticized the study because it has some problems. Prata posted experts who see issues with it and some were the same as my concerns.

Statistician / author Nassim Taleb said "This study has the rigor of lower grade marshmallow left out in the torching tropical sun."

It's not like I am the only one who see's the flaws.

Right leaning personality and news org is sharing this story. Seeing that is not me being political, but watching the political spin happen. They are happy to push this document before it is peer reviewed because they see it says what they want it to say. They make no mention of the dozens of previous studies on the topic with different results.

Be honest. Assume I post a study here where the authors were from a liberal think tank and every left wing news organization was running with. Do you honestly believe that would be well received here?

I am fairly confident that when faced with actual scrutiny, this study will not hold up. Not because I have liberal views, but because it is flawed.
 
I called it a conservative think tank... They are a libertarian think tank. Really not that different and the point is the same. Yes, he has been complaining about lockdowns for two years.
If you don't know that there is a difference between Conservative and Libertarian, I can't help you...feel free to have the last word.
 
If you don't know that there is a difference between Conservative and Libertarian, I can't help you...feel free to have the last word.

Of course I know the difference, but there is quite a bit of overlap which is why the only libertarians in congress are republicans. Both being right of center.

Sure, I'll take the last word. If you have no interest in discussing a study until it's peer reviewed, then maybe wait until it is peer reviewed before posting it.
 
Of course I know the difference, but there is quite a bit of overlap which is why the only libertarians in congress are republicans. Both being right of center.

Sure, I'll take the last word. If you have no interest in discussing a study until it's peer reviewed, then maybe wait until it is peer reviewed before posting it.
lol...ask a Libertarian if they think they are close....
 
Not all the critiques in the article I posted were negative.

Prof David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School, said:

“First the paper is not yet peer-reviewed. It looks to be of good quality so I suspect it will end up in a peer-reviewed journal but obviously results need to be interpreted with that caveat.
 
While conservatives and libertarians share some common ground, the two are foundationally different.

A modest bit of reading would help anyone understand that.
 
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.).
Hilarios some the biased news sources some people post here. No wonder you people are so warped.

here is the actual study. Also the authors are affiliated with the the Applied Economics part of Johns Hopkins. NOT the reputable Johns Hopkins Medicine or School of Public Health. It’s kinda a joke an economist as the expert to talk about health outcomes and not solely economic outcomes to come to a conclusion of a public health issue.

Actual Report
 
Hilarios some the biased news sources some people post here. No wonder you people are so warped.

here is the actual study. Also the authors are affiliated with the the Applied Economics part of Johns Hopkins. NOT the reputable Johns Hopkins Medicine or School of Public Health. It’s kinda a joke an economist as the expert to talk about health outcomes and not solely economic outcomes to come to a conclusion of a public health issue.

Actual Report

https://engineering.jhu.edu/ehe/faculty/steve-h-hanke/

Ah, yeah, now post your credentials....lol
 
Not all the critiques in the article I posted were negative.

Prof David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School, said:

“First the paper is not yet peer-reviewed. It looks to be of good quality so I suspect it will end up in a peer-reviewed journal but obviously results need to be interpreted with that caveat.

Didn't say all, but 3 out of the 4 there did have criticisms.
Just pointing out it's not like I am saying things that are crazy here.

The study points out a 20.2% reduction in mortality from mandated face masks, a 10.6% reduction from business closures a 4.4% reduction from closing schools, a 2.9% reduction from stay at home orders. Put them all together and you get... 0.2%?

I look forward to more analysis about the study. So far, they seem to be confirming my thoughts.
 
My credentials aren’t up for debate. This bio of one of the ECONOMISTS has ZERO health or medicine credentials on it trying to conclude a health outcome.

post the bio of the wack website you first posted here 🤣
They just posted the story. Other mainstream outlets have covered it like News Nation. Try harder.
 
CNN. MSNBS, WAPO, NY Times etc. all avoided it.

WebMD, KHN, and other Health sites, ABC, Forbes, Fortune, Fox, National Post (Canada) and a bunch of local news station covered it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HALL85
CNN. MSNBS, WAPO, NY Times etc. all avoided it.

WebMD, KHN, and other Health sites, ABC, Forbes, Fortune, Fox, National Post (Canada) and a bunch of local news station covered it.

There are other meta analysis papers on the effects of non pharmaceutical interventions that no one covered.
What do you think makes this one different that anyone would want to cover it?
 
They just posted the story. Other mainstream outlets have covered it like News Nation. Try harder.
The townhall is the website you posted here, right? I never heard of it but just going to the home page and looking at the biased article titles, you know who ever goes to this website is soooo slanted.

The whole site is absurdly biased. Please research the definition of confirmation biased. This website will not keep your mind open that you are wrong about issues and make you continuously angry.

you people (those on the extremes side of debates which is absolutely you) keep going to these websites and channels over and over again that over time warp your brain. Stretching the truth, highlighting assumptions as facts, angering you and closing your mind.

even if I agreed with what was on the website I wouldn’t trust it bc I know the website just wants to feed me want I want to read prioritorizing leaning content and entertainment over truth.

it’s gross that people like you think it’s not biased…shows how far your mind is gone to the extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
The townhall is the website you posted here, right? I never heard of it but just going to the home page and looking at the biased article titles, you know who ever goes to this website is soooo slanted.

The whole site is absurdly biased. Please research the definition of confirmation biased. This website will not keep your mind open that you are wrong about issues and make you continuously angry.

you people (those on the extremes side of debates which is absolutely you) keep going to these websites and channels over and over again that over time warp your brain. Stretching the truth, highlighting assumptions as facts, angering you and closing your mind.

even if I agreed with what was on the website I wouldn’t trust it bc I know the website just wants to feed me want I want to read prioritorizing leaning content and entertainment over truth.

it’s gross that people like you think it’s not biased…shows how far your mind is gone to the extreme.
Nice conspiracy theory. I heard about it on the radio driving into work (WOR-710….hardly an extreme right wing station). I typed it in the browser and this was the first article that came up that referenced the study. I don’t even know who Townhall is, but they summarized what was reported on WOR-710.

“People like you” can’t keep an eye open mind about other opinions. Enjoy your echo chamber. Maybe you should read that Bill Maher piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirata and shu09
Nice conspiracy theory. I heard about it on the radio driving into work (WOR-710….hardly an extreme right wing station). I typed it in the browser and this was the first article that came up that referenced the study. I don’t even know who Townhall is, but they summarized what was reported on WOR-710.

“People like you” can’t keep an eye open mind about other opinions. Enjoy your echo chamber. Maybe you should read that Bill Maher piece.

You’ve done the same thing here and attacked the credibility of the source rather than commenting about the content many times.

Shouldn’t act surprised when someone does the same, and yes, clearly a link that asks for your help “exposing leftists” may not be the most credible of websites.

That said, the study is the study no matter where you link it from.
 
WebMd.com. Politically biased?

Rated High on Pro Science Factual Reporting.


In this article WebMd also points to articles claiming the opposite. They don't take a stand either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HALL85
You’ve done the same thing here and attacked the credibility of the source rather than commenting about the content many times.

Shouldn’t act surprised when someone does the same, and yes, clearly a link that asks for your help “exposing leftists” may not be the most credible of websites.

That said, the study is the study no matter where you link it from.
Keep deflecting….it’s all you got
 
Yes you were…:questioning the outlets that ran the story when multiple examples were provided.

That wasn’t me. I have been talking about the contents on the study this entire time and ignored that you posted it from website that isn’t exactly known for being credible. Because like I said, the study is the study.

Just commented that you have not have been nearly as forgiving there when someone posts something from a left leaning site.
 
That wasn’t me. I have been talking about the contents on the study this entire time and ignored that you posted it from website that isn’t exactly known for being credible. Because like I said, the study is the study.

Just commented that you have not have been nearly as forgiving there when someone posts something from a left leaning site.
But it’s been posted on mainstream sites which have been provided.
 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina,
Texas, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, have tolls.

Florida was one of the first to have Open Tolling (License Plate based)

We do work for Florida Tolls. With regard to Open Tolling, it started when someone at the FT realized that they were taking photos of every license plate as it passed through the lanes or under the gantries. They decided to treat the people who passed without an EZ Pass as a customer instead of a criminal. They started sending invoices instead of citations.

25 years ago I did a 2 year gig at PA Turnpike and learned more than I thought possible about toll roads. The general idea is a state vs federal issue. Eisenhower started the big push for federal funding of highways when he funded the Interstate system.

The issue then becomes whether you pay tolls in the form of gas taxes or do you pay direct tolls to the specific road you are on.

The bigger issue is determining the most equitable way to pay for all roads and bridges and who controls the money.

Relative to tolls, the book "The Power Broker" is about the life of Robert Moses. Moses has been associated with forming the first "Authority" to collect tolls. Authorities and Commissions are interesting entities. They are neither private or government yet they wield tremendous power through the revenue they collect.

Some of you may know Moses by the projects he funded in New York. Among them are the many parks in NYC, the Parkways on Long Island, Jones Beach, and Robert Moses State Park. He was said to be a racist. Hard to separate fact from fiction on that one. The racist argument stems from building the Parkways to access Jones Beach. There was no mass transportation provided. The thought is he did it by design because the poor (read: Blacks) did not own cars and were therefore were hindered from accessing Jones Beach.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT