Because if someone had posted a study from the equivalent site on the left, you would not have extended the same courtesy of staying on topic.
for example…
Had I just said that from the start, that would have been a deflection.
Johns Hopkins study on effectiveness of lockdowns
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Because if someone had posted a study from the equivalent site on the left, you would not have extended the same courtesy of staying on topic.
for example…
Had I just said that from the start, that would have been a deflection.
But once again, many mainstream middle of the road outlets have reported on it. So what’s your point?
That you shouldn’t be surprised when people have a reaction to the site instead of the study because you have done the same here many times.
But again, that’s not what I did. I read and commented on what was in the study.
But I clearly stated where I heard about the study (mainstream) but that didn’t seem to stop you. And that was the point about me calling you on deflecting.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
I wasnt commenting on the study I was commenting on the very partisan of their articles.
Should have been obvious to anyone who read the study.
www.forbes.com
Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?
Here's why this working paper is not really a "Johns Hopkins study" despite what some have been saying on social media.
www.forbes.com
You dismiss the study itself, but tout an article that spends much of it discussing the definition of what a "Johns Hopkins study" is...you think this is a peer review or someone that just supports your political view of it? Too funny.Should have been obvious to anyone who read the study.
Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?
Here's why this working paper is not really a "Johns Hopkins study" despite what some have been saying on social media.
I didn't say it was a peer review and it's not a political view to see their study has some significant issues.
It's just more and more obvious as people who are in the field chime in on the study.
As noted from the epidemiologist above, "We will be publishing an academic commentary shortly, but suffice to say it's an extremely poor-quality study that is not useful as evidence for anything" If/when a peer review is published, it's clearly not going to hold up.
Even the author of that one study which is where 90%+ of their assessment is based off of said "They already had their hypothesis. They think that lockdown had no effect on mortality, and that’s what they set out to show in their paper"
and yes, a "Johns Hopkins study" about health carries weight because they have one of the best health institutions in the country. It is an important distinction that this study was not from their medical school.
lol...you post a tweet from Peter Hansen, who is an Economics professor; the same profession as Hanke which you dismissed earlier. Once again...too funny.
I'm looking forward to the peer review and others studies that will be done retrospectively so we can learn what we did right and wrong during the pandemic.
No, the guy I posted is epidemiologist/writer, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz. The economics professor he cited was pointing out one of the problems with the study.
There are dozens of available studies on the topic which have been available for some time.
What was different about this one that made you want to post it here?
No, I posted the 35th tweet in a thread from Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz.
Just happens that in his 34th, which also shows up for some reason, he was citing Peter Hansen.
It's ok that you don't understand how the linking shows up with a tweet, that's why I explained it.
Still wondering what was different about this study that made you want to post it here as opposed to all of the other previous studies on the topic?
I get why you'd chime in with that, but it's a bit of a cop out to post a study here and be unwilling to talk about the contents. If you think I'm like a Chihuahua for pointing out some of the criticisms to the guy unwilling to hear them, so be it.
Maybe you need to get a lesson in how to read a message board thread. I’ve covered this in several posts but you don’t seem to want to accept the answer. So I’ll try one more time.
I was driving to work and the story was referenced in the hourly news on WOR. I got to work and did a quick Google search and several references came up on the article, one of which I posted. I didn’t do a research on the sites lean because it was referenced on a middle of the road radio station. The study has since been mentioned on several MSM outlets that tend to be less bias.
It was interesting because it was one of the first studies I have heard that referenced factors to be considered from lockdowns. A number of physicians and scientists that have been conversing, have expressed some of the long-term effects that we were likely to see mentioned in the study. I didn’t endorse nor dismiss the study, and said I would hold my opinion until there was more information available and it was peer reviewed.
Personally, I would like to have a better feel as to whether the lockdowns/shutdowns saved hundreds of thousands of lives or maybe just st hundreds of lives. I believe that information will be useful and how we deal with future pandemics.
By coincidence, ABC news ran a story last night about China’s zero Covid policy and how it may set them and the world up for serious consequences in the future.
if I need to explain this again I would say the Chihuahua is in trouble.
You posted to a link to a study that is an interesting topic, but you're not willing to develop an opinion and discuss what is actually inside the study. Got it.
Just seems like a cop out especially considering you dismissed a study a month ago here because it was from a psychiatrist. You weren't talking about waiting to see more information or see it peer reviewed etc.
Merge sewing em up and their best response is a dog meme. tells you everything. a simple "youre right, i am biased" could have sufficed.
Or even just talk about what is in the study at some point.
"I still have to read it" turned into "I'll wait for peer review to have an opinion" pretty quickly.
He’s too busy reading the titles of the articles listed on the good ol’Town Hall.
“Sleepy Joe too old to get up the stairs to Air Force one”. Bahahaha old people are old.
“Blame Joe, he is the cause for gas prices being high”. Bahhaha you don’t know how gas prices work.
“Sleepy Joe is too weak with Russia”. Bahaha but Trump love him some Putin even sides with him over FBI and CIA.
“We need to protect the boarder, they going get you while you sleeping says Desantis”. Bahahaha while Thousands were dying of covid everyday in Florida and hospitals overrun this summer.
Merge he is obviously too busy to read a study he posted here because The Old Town Hall is keeping him too engaged in their informative, heart warming, and inspiring articles.
Triggered much? You're like a Chihuahua biting every guy's pants near his foot and no matter how hard they shake their leg the little bugger won't let go.
We knew that lockdowns didn't work in the early summer 2020, when Andrew Cuomo reported that 60+% of COVID fatalities were people who were sheltering in place.
Lockdowns were opportunities to increase government spending and increase worker pay by creating shortages in the labor force. The poop will hit the fan when the next recession occurs.
Lockdowns were opportunities to increase government spending and increase worker pay by creating shortages in the labor force. The poop will hit the fan when the next recession occurs.
Last edited:
