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

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 1:24:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
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 Decadent Linux User Numero Uno , you just proved that you can\'t READ ! ! !
Click to expand...

To Flyguy\'s complete satisfaction. Sadly Flyguy, hasn\'t published his proof and we know that the the kind of \"proof\" that satisfies Flyguy looks very like wishful thinking to more objective observers. Flyguy posts links to stuff that don\'t mean anything like what he claims they mean - a recent link to a document which he presented as if it were about tornado frequency turned out to be about a light aircraft crash - and he can\'t seem to recognise that he\'s got it wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !
 
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !
Click to expand...

Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !
Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Click to expand...

Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
 
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
Click to expand...

The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 4:58:49 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Click to expand...

SNIPPERMAN, as usual, has lost his mind. The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to \"discourage an invading enemy,\" they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage. SNIPPERMAN wants to make HIS OWN COUNTRY uninhabitable, which would also have the same effect on his OWN COUNTRYMEN ! ! ! The guy is an insane lunatic.
 
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

> The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to \"discourage an invading enemy,\" they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

Well, \'their own land\' was less obnoxious than bombing on their conquered territories. The enemy DID invade,
though not the US mainland. Ask in China, Philippines, Korea or old Burma. Hawaii had some complaint with them, too.
 
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 4:58:49 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !

The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate.

Sloman, as usual, has lost his mind. The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to \"discourage an invading enemy,\" they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND.
Click to expand...

Flyguy hasn\'t noticed that Project Ploghshare was about digging holes, not about blowing up enemies. What I was suggesting was that Australia might let off a hydrogen bomb under an iron mine, so that the iron ore fell into the radioactive hole, from which it wouldn\'t have a good idea to dig it out again.

This is all much too complicated for Flyguy to process, so he\'s \"translated\" into something dimwitted enough for him to witter on about.

>And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

The thing about Project Ploughshare was that the nuclear detonations weren\'t supposed to generate a lot of fall-out. Most of it - ideally all of it - was supposed to stay safely buried. What killed it wasn\'t any kind of global environmental damage, but rather the usual \"not in my back yard\" response of the local populations who might have benefited from some large, cheap holes.

> Sloman wants to make HIS OWN COUNTRY uninhabitable, which would also have the same effect on his OWN COUNTRYMEN ! ! ! The guy is an insane lunatic.

The lunacy is all Flyguy\'s. British nuclear tests have already made a few small areas of Australia places that you need to travel through rather quickly. Wrecking an iron mine so that a bunch of invading Chinese couldn\'t exploit it isn\'t exactly making the rest of the country uninhabitable.

Flyguy doesn\'t seem to have noticed that Australia about the same size as the continental United States (with a tenth of the population density) so we aren\'t going to be inconvenienced by losing the occasional small bit, any more that the US was worried about losing the bits that it used for nuclear tests.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:602319a9-88de-4904-8764-1a67b31c7265n@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to \"discourage an
invading enemy,\" they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy
to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY
YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

Well, \'their own land\' was less obnoxious than bombing on their
conquered territories. The enemy DID invade, though not the US
mainland. Ask in China, Philippines, Korea or old Burma. Hawaii
had some complaint with them, too.
Click to expand...

+1

Not to mention their penchant for torture.
 
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:e7e0fffa-
a70c-4f99-af08-2419672988d3n@googlegroups.com:

> \"not in my back yard\"

Heheheh.. More like \"Not under my back yard\", eh?
 
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:46:45 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study...
Click to expand...

which makes silly assumptions and ends with an opinion that exceeds the
meta-study scope.

> https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

.... is a book review, and frankly, either reading the book, or even the review,
takes as much time as a few dozen repetitions of masking up.
Even if all it does is remind us that there\'s a disease rampant, and to
keep distancing, those silly masks are a good idea. Wearing swimsuits for
swimming, it\'s less clear.
 
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
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.

LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

Says the moron who hasn\'t noticed that the US. government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
Click to expand...

You\'d think that even a moron like Flyguy would notice that the US still has nuclear weapons, and is still spending money on making sure that they would work, albeit using the more sophisticate methods that have been developed in the past sixty years.

There are still potentially useful. I was pointing out a particular use in a situation of all-out war, not suggesting one more test blast.

Flyguy is much too dumb to realise that there is a difference, and that the fact he hasn\'t noticed it emphasises just how dumb he is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> 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 Joe Biden and Fauci.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/
Click to expand...

This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren\'t all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

\"Studies\" of areas where lots of people didn\'t aren\'t all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don\'t like being implemented in a desultory fashion and showing that it didn\'t do much.

Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> 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 Joe Biden and Fauci.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren\'t all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

\"Studies\" of areas where lots of people didn\'t aren\'t all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don\'t like being implemented in a desultory fashion and showing that it didn\'t do much.

Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Click to expand...

SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn\'t) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates. Used to be that libtards like SNIPPERMAN said that they \"follow the science;\" once the science turns against them they say \"Oh, forget the science - we know best.\"
 
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

> SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn\'t) which concluded ...

Flyguy didn\'t read the article. The Johns Hopkins institution specifically disavows the
opinion content, though the authors have some affiliation with that school. The
fact that Johns Hopkins also has a useful site for tracking COVID events is
a handy bit of camouflage, as the factual content of the article in question, for
the \'conclusion\' which does not have any support in the data
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:56:04 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> 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 Joe Biden and Fauci.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren\'t all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

\"Studies\" of areas where lots of people didn\'t aren\'t all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don\'t like being implemented in a desultory fashion and showing that it didn\'t do much.

Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn\'t) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates. Used to be that libtards like SNIPPERMAN said that they \"follow the science;\" once the science turns against them they say \"Oh, forget the science - we know best.\"
Click to expand...

The Science keeps changing.

What\'s amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done on
simple things like masking. It wouldn\'t be difficult.

A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad
experiments.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
 
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:56:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> 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 Joe Biden and Fauci.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren\'t all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

\"Studies\" of areas where lots of people didn\'t aren\'t all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don\'t like being implemented in a desultory fashion and showing that it didn\'t do much.

Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

Sloman thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn\'t) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates.
Click to expand...

It was the John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise, and one of the authors (and a co-founder of the Institute), is one Steve H. Hanke - is also a senior fellow at the CATO Institute. This is a right-wing institute that has been tacked onto John Hopkins with the intention of exploiting the John Hopkin\'s reputation to add credibility to the usual right-wing propaganda

> Used to be that libtards like Sloman said that they \"follow the science;\" once the science turns against them they say \"Oh, forget the science - we know best.\"

We still follow the science, but we do know enough to notice when right-wing clowns publish incomplete studies of selected data that appear to support false propositions. I\'ve made the point often enough that our resident population of gullible suckers (who don\'t seem to notice when this happens) should have noticed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 2/2/22 10:20, 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.
Click to expand...

This article says you\'re a chump:

<https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claims-johns-hopkins-study-showed-lockdowns-ineffective-reducing-covid-19-mortality-based-working-paper-questionable-methods-fox-news-daily-mail/>

How do you feel about that?
 
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:15:21 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:56:04 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> 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 Joe Biden and Fauci.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren\'t all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

\"Studies\" of areas where lots of people didn\'t aren\'t all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don\'t like being implemented in a desultory fashion and showing that it didn\'t do much..

Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.
Click to expand...

<snipped Flyguy missing the point with his usual enthusiasm>

> The science keeps changing.

It doesn\'t. John Larkin keeps on getting suckered by pseudoscientific propaganda that makes that kind of assertion at regular intervals.
What\'s amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done on simple things like masking. It wouldn\'t be difficult.
Click to expand...

It\'s one of those areas where medical clowns do lots of bad experiments, and get them published in the medical literature, which isn\'t famous for the quality of its refereeing. John Larkin doesn\'t know about any of them

> A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad experiments.

In this case the study averaged a carefully selected bunch of bad experiments - mask-wearing and lock-downs in regions where there was no enthusiasm for enforcing the desired behavior - and the conclusion is that if you don\'t get most people to conform to the desired restriction, saying that they ought to doesn\'t have much effect. This isn\'t the way the study is being sold - it\'s right-wing propaganda and lying about what the results mean is the whole point of the exercise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
FlyTurd <soreonhisface2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0ac5a3a2-312e-483a-8df3-e4bd02c0bf76n@googlegroups.com:

SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn\'t)
which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on
COVID death rates.
Click to expand...

ONLY because ALL of the retarded party centric TrumpTards did not
participate. You obviously have no clue about the stats\' truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top