Reply to Meta analysis of Covid Lockdowns

Forum Index » Health and Medicine

Reply to "Meta analysis of Covid Lockdowns"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The report is not a political issue nor is anyone denying the amount of deaths. It is a report based on research from several sources showing the number of lives saved by mandatory lockdowns nowhere close to the predictions.

It appears the savings were not were the risks. Yes you can put down economic losses but it is businesses that employee people who need the benefit of those jobs:

It is saying it wasn’t 100’s of thousands of lives saved.

[/quote]

I'm ready for a non-political study, but this ain't it. [/quote]

Explain how a meta analysis of study results is political?[/quote]

Cherry-picking results, methodology and attempting to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. This is what ideological and disingenuous “think tanks” like this do. [/quote]

Please go through the studies and tell me what is incorrect.  Your bias is showing. You don't want to believe you were misled.  Now prove you are right. I'm still waiting.[/quote]

I already told you: I don’t indulge sealion trolls. Look that up if you don’t understand what it means (yeah, I get the irony of that statement).

The IEA is not a credible organization and any “research” it puts out, meta or not, is not credible by default. Full stop, the end, lovely parting gifts for you and all that.

Sit down. [/quote]

So you cannot refute any of the data? All you can do is use some forum speak for some kind of troll. This is what those who cannot refute the data do. They name call; the obfuscate and they say well the source is right leaning so it must be wrong.

There is no end because you say so!  Got it?  Good now to name call someone else and refuse to go to bed because you feel someone is wrong on the internet because you refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence that destroys everything we were told![/quote]

I don't have to refute it. The SSRN rejected the paper. That speaks volumes about it's validity.

The contortions the authors go into to explain their screening process for which studies to include in their "analysis" and which to not is another big clue that the conclusions here were preordained and the studies selected for inclusion were intended to arrive at that conclusion.

How about you tell us why you think the findings are valid, other than the fact that they're in a 200-page report they hope no one will actually read?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics