Study proves that COVID lockdowns did more harm than good...

[Flyguy]

JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and help was not done. Help was measured,
at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising infection rate is not appropriate.

It\'s hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

> Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have instigated the regional lockdown measures
we\'ve seen in the US, those decisions are by governors and local officials. \"Many people\" can speak nonsense,
even if it\'s a 1% effect, in a world of 7 billion people. Flyguy is well under 1% of that1%...

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:
Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and help was not done. Help was measured,
at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising infection rate is not appropriate.

It\'s hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed suicide because of it.

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have instigated the regional lockdown measures
we\'ve seen in the US, those decisions are by governors and local officials. \"Many people\" can speak nonsense,
even if it\'s a 1% effect, in a world of 7 billion people. Flyguy is well under 1% of that1%...

You can\'t read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

> You can\'t read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.

When Ireland opened their schools, cases jumped. We certainly DO know that some restrictions were
effective because there\'s good direct data, not just reviews of selected studies.

The study doesn\'t refute any policy Biden is behind, nor any Fauci statements. It doesn\'t
mention them at all.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:

JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:06:27 PM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

You can\'t read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.
When Ireland opened their schools, cases jumped. We certainly DO know that some restrictions were
effective because there\'s good direct data, not just reviews of selected studies.

The study doesn\'t refute any policy Biden is behind, nor any Fauci statements. It doesn\'t
mention them at all.

The study speaks for itself: the polices advocated by Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci DON\'T WORK!

 

[server]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4-8608-4c4d03a8a014n@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, FlyTurd wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
(https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect
s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
helpful:

Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and
help was not done. Help was measured,
at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising
infection rate is not appropriate.

Yep. FlyTurd is an absolute utter retard.

It\'s hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small
benefit of policy, or if they result from policy applied wisely
but compliance lacking,

Exactly the most significant factor very likey IS lack of
compliance and that is nearly 100% Trumper idiots.

or from policy applied wisely to prevent
an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily
assigned zero probability).

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for
months, EXCEPT
for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have
instigated the regional lockdown measures we\'ve seen in the US,
those decisions are by governors and local officials. \"Many
people\" can speak nonsense, even if it\'s a 1% effect, in a world
of 7 billion people. FlyTurd is well under 1% of that1%...

FlyTurd is far less than that. His two firing neurons put him
firmly in the Completely and utterly retarded TrumpTard camp. Their
(infection)numbers are higher,...

...and their (intelligence) numbers are lower. Signifcantly lower.

 

[server]

FlyTurd <soreass2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2860ae70-409b-46bf-8512-8b113f09166cn@googlegroups.com:

OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses
closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed
suicide because of it.

That may well be YOUR assertion, however, it is NOT the assertion of
the article you cited, so your title for your post is what you got
banged on, you stupid fuck.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

It\'s hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed suicide because of it.

That\'s harm due to a pandemic, not due to any particular lockdown policy. Folk can die/decide to quit/stay home
without a policy of lockdown. Policy DOES have an effect on shipping handoffs at borders, but that\'s
not covered in the article cited.

 

[server]

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
news:34e1d8d2-37a3-46b7-b590-d9464c697258n@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, FlyTurd wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
(https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect
s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for
months, EXCEPT
for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing
lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly
obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models
to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of
others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that
lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested
weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones.
The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re
found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE
SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required
to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing
with them. Your little phony research paper written by bunch of
CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

+1 And -890k for each of our nation\'s victims.

FlyTurd could be more stupid... maybe in some other life... just
not this one.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.
If you isolate forever, you\'re safe from infection. But eventually you
have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn\'t double/triple/quadruple
vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn\'t and option because it means starving ...

 

[bitrex]

On 2/2/2022 8:53 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.
If you isolate forever, you\'re safe from infection. But eventually you
have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn\'t double/triple/quadruple
vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn\'t and option because it means starving ...

There were a lot of people in the US who wanted to stay home but
couldn\'t just on the grounds that getting seriously ill in America often
also means going bankrupt, too.

If you\'ve got the temerity to get really sick here and your Aryan genes
and workout routine didn\'t do a good enough job keeping you healthy on
your own, the for-profit healthcare system has no problem at all bilking
you for every dime you got, you deserve it.

Dying sucks, surviving often sucks pretty hard too, there\'s a definite
financial incentive to not get sick in the US, also

 

[bitrex]

On 2/2/2022 9:18 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 2/2/2022 8:53 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
(https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf)
that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months,
EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing
lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly
obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models
to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine
(even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others
with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown
is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and
assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police
regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one
indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT
THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and
quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute
economists is easily refuted as garbage.
If you isolate forever, you\'re safe from infection. But eventually you
have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.
or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn\'t
double/triple/quadruple
vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn\'t and option because it means
starving ...

There were a lot of people in the US who wanted to stay home but
couldn\'t just on the grounds that getting seriously ill in America often
also means going bankrupt, too.

Or to be more clear, they couldn\'t stay home cuz \"work or starve\" tends
to be the option here, also

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn\'t do much that was useful.

More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful..

John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

If you isolate forever, you\'re safe from infection. But eventually you
have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

But the point about effective lockdowns is that you eventually don\'t have anybody out in the community who is infected. Really effective lockdowns only have to last a couple of week, and after that you can go back to life as normal, until some idiot border control officer lets in a new infected person and they manage to infect a new bunch of carriers. Australia had a series of regional lockdowns. Some places saw very few infections at all.

> The latest variant of the virus isn\'t very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.

Not good advice. It\'s still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

> The Chinese communist party seems to have other reasons to deploy universal tracking.

Perhaps, but it is very useful for enforcing lock-downs when you need them, and making sure that they are enforced well enough to be effective.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:58:39 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.

Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

Because they were introduced too late to have much effect, and not enforced vigorously enough to have much effect.

What the paper effectively says is that the US and European governments that tried to lock down their population did a thoroughly incompetent job.

As you\'d expect from a study coming for the CATO Institute, they\'ve ignored places that introduced lockdowns fast enough for them to be helpful and enforced them stringently enough for them to be effective. Right-wingers just love examples of policies they don\'t like being enacted too incompetently to deliver the benefits thye should have done.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 03.44.11 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
The latest variant of the virus isn\'t very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.
Not good advice. It\'s still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

lots of things kill people in Australia, google says ~160000 people die in Australia each year

 

[corvid]

On 2/2/22 16:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4-8608-4c4d03a8a014n@googlegroups.com:

It\'s hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small
benefit of policy, or if they result from policy applied wisely but
compliance lacking,

Exactly the most significant factor very likey IS lack of compliance
and that is nearly 100% Trumper idiots.
^^^^^ ^^^^^

They were licking aircraft toilet seats.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 02/02/2022 23:58, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

\"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.\"

Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin\' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don\'t need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you\'re found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don\'t even think about arguing with them.
Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

That is selective righttard reporting in a way intended to deceive!

Their point if there was one is that most gain came from knocking down
the main vectors of transmission rather than the lockdown itself.

Namely closing down the main spreading venues:

Entertainment venues
Schools and universities

And taking counter measures against spreading it:

Social distancing
Wearing Masks
Staying outdoors

UK is a special case in that deaths were made worse by insane actions

Disbanding the pandemic preparedness committee 6 months prior
(and running down pandemic supplies to the bare bone)
Throwing infected elderly patients into care homes untested.

It is ironic that the people setting the rules in the UK were partying
like there was no tomorrow inside the Prime Minister\'s own home No 10!
He is very much in the \"Do as I say, not as I do\" school of management.

Whilst they were all partying the rules said you could only meet one
person outside your home and take 1 hour a day of exercise outdoors.

He should be fired for misleading the House of Commons but the lying toe
rags are all rallying round him. Amusingly one of their hugely crowded
meetings to determine his fate has spread Covid into their MPs!
(they deserve that since freedom loving non mask wearing was rampant)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4...@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, FlyTurd wrote:
JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
(https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect
s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
helpful:

Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and
help was not done. Help was measured,
at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising
infection rate is not appropriate.
Yep. FlyTurd is an absolute utter retard.

Hey DecayedBrainMatter, you just proved that you can\'t READ ! ! !