Meta analysis of Covid Lockdowns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI people,

This is bullshit masquerading as research and insight.

The IEA isn't an actual think tank. It's a right-wing lobby group in the UK with a history of acting in bad faith. It is not a legitimate source for anything, let alone claims about the efficacy of COVID lockdowns.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/05/rightwing-thinktank-breached-charity-law-by-campaigning-for-hard-brexit


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matt-hancock-took-cash-from-anti-nhs-institute-of-economic-affairs-z2lms76t5


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit

Your “sources” have nothing to do with this report book. Please show in detail where this meta analysis of other research is wrong. I’ll wait.

Or are you a research denier.

I do not indulge sea lion trolls.

It is safe to say any “research” by the IEA can be dismissed out of hand as invalid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The freedoms we gave up

Seriously. Name three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospitals were overrun and medical professionals were overworked and burning out. The lockdown prevented the collapse of the medical system. Perhaps the lockdown went longer than it needed to, but it was impossible to predict exactly how covid would evolve.

Right, I think a lot of people have forgotten the "flatten the curve" thing which was one major purpose of lockdowns. It wasn't just to prevent deaths from covid.

+1 some people are forgetting that some of the covid patients had to be transported miles away because the hospitals were full, and this includes some areas that flouted the quarantines, and some of those ended up having to go to a hospital in a different state (blue) that had room -- Sturgis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospitals were overrun and medical professionals were overworked and burning out. The lockdown prevented the collapse of the medical system. Perhaps the lockdown went longer than it needed to, but it was impossible to predict exactly how covid would evolve.

Right, I think a lot of people have forgotten the "flatten the curve" thing which was one major purpose of lockdowns. It wasn't just to prevent deaths from covid.

+1 some people are forgetting that some of the covid patients had to be transported miles away because the hospitals were full, and this includes some areas that flouted the quarantines, and some of those ended up having to go to a hospital in a different state (blue) that had room -- Sturgis.

please share these stats on the number of Covid patients who were transferred from red to blue states because hospitals in red states were full.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Stupid post. The ONLY reason you and PP could sit at home and congratulate yourself for how virtuous you are is because of all the low-wage workers bringing you groceries, your mail-order Peleton, and keeping the electricity and internet going so you could WFH. Meanwhile you arrogate the right to yourself to determine what harms other people should suffer to make you feel safe.

How many low-wage workers do you personally know? And how many of them opposed lockdowns (not including school closures)?

Sure Jan, the Drizly driver was very happy to support you in your ability to “stay home to flatten the curve.” He considered it an honor to provide the wine.

So, you don't know any. I know PLENTY of low-income workers who were in favor of lockdowns.

Sure you do.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused. Were the images of body bags in NYC a hoax? The overflowing hospitals? Ventilator shortage?

Wouldn't in at least most cities that would have been the case had we not locked down? This doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Our hospitals were full. ER staff didn’t have enough PPE. Morgues were full. NY literally had to create a mass grave. Heart attacks and strokes in the ER weren’t treated as fast as they should have been because everyone was overworked and over capacity. How quickly some people forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Stupid post. The ONLY reason you and PP could sit at home and congratulate yourself for how virtuous you are is because of all the low-wage workers bringing you groceries, your mail-order Peleton, and keeping the electricity and internet going so you could WFH. Meanwhile you arrogate the right to yourself to determine what harms other people should suffer to make you feel safe.

How many low-wage workers do you personally know? And how many of them opposed lockdowns (not including school closures)?

Sure Jan, the Drizly driver was very happy to support you in your ability to “stay home to flatten the curve.” He considered it an honor to provide the wine.

So, you don't know any. I know PLENTY of low-income workers who were in favor of lockdowns.

Not the point. The point is that patting yourself on the back for staying home does not actually prevent spread when people are just out there running your errands in your place.

Actually it did, because kids in school are the major disease vectors.

There is another study showing that spread goes down during breaks when the kids are germing each other up.

Wage workers also have school aged children…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI people,

This is bullshit masquerading as research and insight.

The IEA isn't an actual think tank. It's a right-wing lobby group in the UK with a history of acting in bad faith. It is not a legitimate source for anything, let alone claims about the efficacy of COVID lockdowns.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/05/rightwing-thinktank-breached-charity-law-by-campaigning-for-hard-brexit


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matt-hancock-took-cash-from-anti-nhs-institute-of-economic-affairs-z2lms76t5


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit

Your “sources” have nothing to do with this report book. Please show in detail where this meta analysis of other research is wrong. I’ll wait.

Or are you a research denier.

I do not indulge sea lion trolls.

It is safe to say any “research” by the IEA can be dismissed out of hand as invalid.

You know that a meta analysis is not the same as doing the research themselves. I want to discount it.

[Anonymous]

This is a flawed misunderstanding of the data and reasons for the lockdowns. The purpose was not to reduce the total area under the curve of everyone who died from COVID. The purpose was to elongate the x (time) variable and reduce the higher if the y (# of deaths as a function of time) variable. That is, to not have a million people die in six weeks, instead to spread it out over several years. Because otherwise the health care system would have completely broken, nowhere near enough beds for that short timeframe, people would have been dying in the streets, and there would have been many more secondary deaths and ripple effects from the breakdown of all other forms of healthcare. It also bought time until vaccines were ready which undoubtedly reduced the number of deaths overall and converted many cases that would have been deaths into illness with recovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Stupid post. The ONLY reason you and PP could sit at home and congratulate yourself for how virtuous you are is because of all the low-wage workers bringing you groceries, your mail-order Peleton, and keeping the electricity and internet going so you could WFH. Meanwhile you arrogate the right to yourself to determine what harms other people should suffer to make you feel safe.

How many low-wage workers do you personally know? And how many of them opposed lockdowns (not including school closures)?

Sure Jan, the Drizly driver was very happy to support you in your ability to “stay home to flatten the curve.” He considered it an honor to provide the wine.

So, you don't know any. I know PLENTY of low-income workers who were in favor of lockdowns.

Not the point. The point is that patting yourself on the back for staying home does not actually prevent spread when people are just out there running your errands in your place.

Actually it did, because kids in school are the major disease vectors.

There is another study showing that spread goes down during breaks when the kids are germing each other up.

And those images of full school halls in GA didn’t result in an over abundance of cases statistically speaking. GA has actually done amazing economically and even send back surplus checks two years in a row.

[Anonymous]

An entire generation of youth are permanently damaged because of the choices made by hypochondriac boomers. I don't expect this board to fully understand, but I know your children and grandchildren do.

It's telling that you had no problem discarding the priority of public health in Summer 2020 to signal your virtue (aka protest against "racism").

[Anonymous]

Most of us have not forgotten

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An entire generation of youth are permanently damaged because of the choices made by hypochondriac boomers. I don't expect this board to fully understand, but I know your children and grandchildren do.

It's telling that you had no problem discarding the priority of public health in Summer 2020 to signal your virtue (aka protest against "racism").

Well remember that type of gathering was okay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My ski trip wasnt cancelled. Just had loved ones die alone, give birth alone. Drug overdoses.

Businesses fail. Livelihoods destroyed. People coerced into getting medical treatment they weren't comfortable with in order to keep their jobs