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.

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 %

Anonymous wrote:Too many people have email jobs they faked from home and no concern for the businesses lost or the children harmed. You’ll never get through their selfishness.

Anonymous wrote:Objectively, the best solution for society would have to to not lock down and cull anyone over 80 years old.

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Covid denier. I am a lockdown denier.
I deny the right of the government to lock down healthy people.
I deny curfews, and travel bans, and business closures. I deny shuttered churches.
I deny dying alone. I deny cruelty to children. I deny forced family separation.

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Covid denier. I am a lockdown denier.
I deny the right of the government to lock down healthy people.
I deny curfews, and travel bans, and business closures. I deny shuttered churches.
I deny dying alone. I deny cruelty to children. I deny forced family separation.

The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden

This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.

Lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season – in England and Wales, 18,500–24,800 flu deaths occur, in Europe 72,000 flu deaths occur, and in the United States 38,000 flu deaths occur in a typical flu season

These results pale in comparison to the Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States

Herby, Jonung, and Hanke conclude that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic – but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits

COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.

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)?

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.