Connect with us

COVID-19

REPORT: Lockdowns had ‘No Noticeable Effect’ on Mortality

Did have ‘Devastating Effects’ on Economy and ‘Social Ills’

Published

on

Kid Mask

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have come out with a very direct message: “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

The analysis states the lockdowns did not reduce deaths in the United States nor Europe. “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies” reports TheWashington Times.

Liberals love to “follow the science.” Under the pretense of their beloved “science” they have been screaming bloody murder, literally, that conservative leadership attempting to open back up the economy and reimplement freedoms, exactly what the researchers found, were murderers.

The research paper said while lockdowns did not save us from COVID-19 mortality, they did still have “devastating effects”. What did suffer devastating effects? Again, what conservatives and Republican leadership has been saying.

“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the report said.

“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the paper concluded.

Another area of liberal illogic was also discussed in the research paper: “Lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places,” they wrote. “Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality.”

The Washington Times reports on the history of the lockdowns:

Early on, many states and 186 countries imposed bans on work, socialization, in-person schooling, travel and other restrictions to limit the spread of the disease, citing recommendations by top health care experts.

Researchers at the Imperial College London, for example, predicted that such steps could reduce death rates by up to 98%. That never happened, according to the new study by researchers Steve Hanke, Jonas Herby, and Lars Jonung at Johns Hopkins.

“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

They examined deaths early during the pandemic and determined that, by end of the lockdown period studied, on May 20, 2020, a total of 97,081 people had died of COVID-19 in the U.S.

A prominent study at the time had estimated there would be 99,050 deaths without lockdowns. Mr. Hanke is the founder and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. Mr. Herby is special adviser at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark. Mr. Jonung is professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden.

They conducted a “meta-analysis” of dozens of studies that examined COVID-19 mortality rates. Despite the overall findings, they did note some evidence that closing bars helped to reduce deaths.

“Closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars,” they said.

The researchers said the timing of lockdowns, and unintended consequences, may play a larger role than expected in affecting mortality.

 

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Stephane

    February 3, 2022 at 6:14 pm

    So Janis DEAN grand-parents did not die of covid?
    Over 20 000 people just in New York’s elderly homes did not die of covid?
    Well, johns hopkins, it sounds like your “””science””” is full of feces!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

COVID-19

Former Harvard medical professor says he was fired for opposing Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates

Published

on

Covid

“My hope is that someday, Harvard will find its way back to academic freedom and independence.” That is the heartfelt message from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former Harvard University professor of medicine since 2003, who recently announced publicly he was fired for “clinging to the truth” in his opposition to Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Kulldorff posted the news on social media alongside an essay published in the City Journal last week. The epidemiologist and biostatistician also spoke with National Review about the incident. Kulldorff says he was fired by the Harvard-affiliated Mass General Brigham hospital system and put on a leave of absence by Harvard Medical School in November 2021 over his stance on Covid.

Nearly two years later, in October 2023, his leave of absence was terminated as a matter of policy, marking the end of his time at the university. Harvard severed ties with Kulldorff “all on their initiative,” he said.

The history of the medical professional’s public stance on Covid-19 vaccines and mandates is detailed by National Review:

Censorship and rejection led Kulldorff to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020 alongside Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University. Together, the three public-health scientists argued for limited and targeted Covid-19 restrictions that “protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives,” as Kulldorff put it in his essay.

“The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified—and even grew slanderous,” he wrote, naming former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins as the one who ordered a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration.

Testifying before Congress in January, Collins reaffirmed his previous statements attacking the Great Barrington Declaration.

Despite the coordinated effort against it, the document has over 939,000 signatures in favor of age-based focused protection.

The Great Barrington Declaration’s authors, who advocated the quick reopening of schools, have been vindicated by recent studies that confirm pandemic-era school closures were, in fact, detrimental to student learning. The data show that students from third through eighth grade who spent most of the 2020–21 school year in remote learning fell more than half a grade behind in math scores on average, while those who attended school in person dropped a little over a third of a grade, according to a New York Times review of existing studies. In addition to learning losses, school closures did very little to stop the spread of Covid, studies show.

Continue Reading

Trending