An Interesting Study

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, at least interesting to me. I would be fascinated to see where the discussion of this, if any, goes. I have already written my prediction and I will post it verbatim, without any changes, when any discussion peters out.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files ... tality.pdf

Public health experts and politicians have – based on forecasts in epidemiological studies such as
that of Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. (2020) – embraced compulsory lockdowns as
an effective method for arresting the pandemic. But, have these lockdown policies been effective
in curbing COVID-19 mortality? This is the main question answered by our meta-analysis.
Adopting a systematic search and title-based screening, we identified 1,048 studies published by
July 1st, 2020, which potentially look at the effect of lockdowns on mortality rates. To answer
our question, we focused on studies that examine the actual impact of lockdowns on COVID-19
mortality rates based on registered cross-sectional mortality data and a counterfactual difference
in-difference approach. Out of the 1,048 studies, 34 met our eligibility criteria.

Conclusions
Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on
mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the
OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only
reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on
recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced
COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential
businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based
evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential
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. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but
there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures,
school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted
estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also
do not reduce COVID-19 mortality.

[Bob Juch]

They reviewed 24 relevant studies on the effectiveness of lockdowns. The researchers screened out 18,590 studies that did not meet their criteria.

Gee, do you think they might have cherry-picked?

[Bob78164]

They reviewed 24 relevant studies on the effectiveness of lockdowns. The researchers screened out 18,590 studies that did not meet their criteria.

Gee, do you think they might have cherry-picked?

I'd love to know what Nate Silver thinks of this metastudy. They do appear to show their methods with enough transparency to allow a meaningful analysis of that question. I started to read it but it quickly became obvious that it will require me either a lot of time or some well-informed help to determine whether the methodology is sound.

I am skeptical of the result stated for a number of reasons. First, given Prof. Henke's clear political affiliations, I'm less confident than I'd like to be in the accuracy of what he's done. Second, based on what I've skimmed, it seems to me that they threw studies looking only at mask requirements into the same bucket as studies that looked at outright business closures. It does not surprise me that, particularly early in the pandemic, mask requirements alone did not have much impact on death rates.

There's a third reason that shouldn't be overlooked. The results they're suggesting don't seem to match our lived experience over the last two years. It seems pretty clear that states that took COVID precautions more seriously had better outcomes than states that did not. When a study points to results that seem inconsistent with what we've observed in real life, that seems to me a pretty good reason to be skeptical of the study. --Bob

[jaybee]

Impossible to draw any conclusions from this, other than conjecture. While I think that some countries have had some serious lockdowns in response to Covid, in the U.S. at best our lockdown efforts were weak to the point of non-existence. With a disease as contagious as Covid, an effective lockdown needs almost 100% compliance to have any chance at working. It certainly needs almost 100% compliance to make an accurate assessment as to if it's working or not. Closing down businesses like restaurants and bars was a true lockdown but the majority of public venues in this country remained open with only minor efforts to control the spread of Covid.

While I'm sure that lockdown efforts varied in different parts of the country, as a whole we really did not do very much. Realistically, the only controls that I have seen over these last two years of Covid are:

1. Plexiglass shields at most business check-out areas
2. A definite effort by most people to stand further apart in public areas and businesses
3. A very small percentage of businesses, some government offices, most hospitals/Dr. offices enforcing mask wearing.
4. Temporary closures or limiting capacity of high density businesses like restaurants, bars, movie theatres etc.
5. Some businesses enacting a work at home policy for some employees.

These efforts at a "lockdown" were more than offset by:

1. Very short periods of time in place. Around here, we were so focused at 'getting things opened up again" that many restrictions were lifted despite infection numbers continuing to rise
2. Public announcements by our elected officials and law enforcement that there would be no enforcement of any lockdown rules.
3. A general disregard for any Covid restrictions. Basically a "that doesn't apply to me" approach.
4. Non-enforcement of any restrictions. During the Summer of '20, when things were really starting to get bad, many stores went into serious Covid restrictions. I hung around and watched our local Wal-Mart after they announced massive Covid restrictions - They closed down all but one entrance/exit, put up fencing to corral customers and keep them spaced apart and had everyone walk through a tent entrance. They had 2-3 Wal-Mart people on duty to keep an entry/exit count of people to keep the store from being too crowded. Many people wore a mask. Some did not. The official response from Wal-Mart to all was "Welcome to Wal-Mart". It did not take more than a half day before we went right back to about 50/50 mask/no mask wearing. This was pretty much the same for all stores.

I personally believe that had we actually had enforced mandates during these two years of pandemic that our overall infection rate and overall death rate would be considerably lower than it is now. I do not know if more enforced efforts at a lockdown would have simply pushed the wave of Covid into a later timeframe. As easily transmitted as Covid is, we could have had many less infected in those early months only to see a greater surge later on whenever a lockdown was eased up. So we could have been at exactly the same place we are now, had we done an actual lockdown. But despite two years of Covid history, we cannot draw an accurate conclusion as to a lockdowns effectiveness until we actually have a lockdown to study.

[silverscreenselect]

This study was not peer reviewed. Here's what some peers had to say about it:

This report on the effect of “lockdowns” does not significantly advance our understanding of the relative effectiveness of the plethora of public health measures adopted by different countries to limit COVID-19 transmission. First, the policies which comprised “lockdown” varied dramatically between countries, meaning defining the term is problematic. In their new report, Herby et al appear to define lockdown as imposition of one or more mandatory non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs); by that definition, the UK has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown – given it remain compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.

A second and more important issue is that the statistical methods used to estimate the impact of NPIs using observational data need to be appropriate. Such interventions are intended to reduce contact rates between individuals in a population, so their primary impact, if effective, is on transmission rates. Impacts on hospitalisation and mortality are delayed, in some cases by several weeks. In addition, such measures were generally introduced (or intensified) during periods where governments saw rapidly growing hospitalisations and deaths. Hence mortality immediately following the introduction of lockdowns is generally substantially higher than before. Neither is lockdown a single event as some of the studies feeding into this meta-analysis assume; the duration of the intervention needs to be accounted for when assessing its impact.

A consequence of NPIs affecting transmission (rather than total deaths directly), is that interventions cannot be assumed to have fixed additive effects on outcome measures such as deaths over a certain time window – interventions affect transmission rates, and therefore the appropriate outcome measures to consider are growth rates (of cases or deaths) over time, with appropriate time lags – not total cases or deaths. ... [T] he effectiveness of “lockdowns” came from the combined impact of the multiple individual interventions which made up that policy in different countries and states: limiting gathering size, business closure, mask wearing, school closure and stay at home orders. While removing any one of the measures making up “lockdown” is predicted by most studies to have a relatively limited effect on the effectiveness of the overall policy, that does not mean that the combined set of measures in place during times countries were in “lockdown” were not highly effective at driving down both COVID-19 transmission and daily deaths.

In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics. These do not include key facts about disease transmission such as: later lockdowns are less effective than earlier lockdowns, because many people are already infected; lockdowns do not immediately save lives, because there’s a lag from infection to death, so to see the effect of lockdowns on Covid deaths we need to wait about two or three weeks. (This was all known in March 2020 – we discussed it in a paper released that month, and later published in Nature. Our paper is excluded from consideration in this meta-analysis.)

It’s as if we wanted to know whether smoking causes cancer and so we asked a bunch of new smokers: did you have cancer the day before you started smoking? And what about the day after? If we did this, obviously we’d incorrectly conclude smoking is unrelated to cancer, but we’d be ignoring basic science. The science of diseases and their causes is complex, and it has a lot of surprises for us, but there are appropriate methods to study it, and inappropriate methods. This study intentionally excludes all studies rooted in epidemiology–the science of disease.”

I find this paper has flaws and needs to be interpreted very carefully. Two years in, it seems still to focus on the first wave of SARS-COV2 and in a very limited number of countries. The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is. The authors define lockdown as “as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention”. This would make a mask wearing policy a lockdown. For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange. The authors then further confuse matters when in Table 7 they revert to the more common definition of lockdown. Many scientists, including myself, quickly moved on from the word “lockdown” as this isn’t really a policy (Brauner et al 2020, and my work in Sharma et al 2021). It’s an umbrella word for a set of strict policies designed to reduce the reproduction number below one and halt the exponential growth of infections. Lockdown in Denmark and Lockdown in the UK are made up of very different individual policies.

Aside from issues of definitions there are other issues such as (a) It’s not easy to compare Low and High income countries in terms of the enforcement and adherence of policies, (b) Many countries locked down before seeing exponential growth and therefore saw no reduction in deaths, (c) There are lags – interventions operate on transmission but mortality is indirect and lagged – comparing mortality a month before and after lockdown is likely to have no effect (e.g Bjørnskov 2021a), (d) As i have mentioned it looks at a tiny slice of the pandemic, there have been many lockdowns since globally with far better data, (e) There are many prominent studies that cover the period in question looking at infections included including Brauner et al 2020, Alfano et al 2020, Dye et al 2020, Lai et al 2020, Hsiang et al 2020, Salje et al 2020 etc. The list of such studies is very long and suggests a highly incomplete meta-analysis.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... s-website/

So, to sum up:

1) A very broad definition of "lockdown"
2) Selective choice of studies
3) Ignoring lag times between interactions and hospitalizations and deaths
4) The fact that "lockdowns" were often imposed or reimposed following major spikes in the cases, which would naturally cause a spike in hospitalizations and deaths after the lockdown was imposed
5) Ignoring the fact that "lockdowns" involve cumulative measures that aren't strictly additive, so you can't just remove one restriction and gauge a meaningful change in effectiveness.
6) Varying degrees of adherence and enforcement of "lockdown" measures.
7) Some countries (New Zealand) locked down before many cases occurred, so there was no significant "drop" in adverse effects after the lockdown.

[tlynn78]

Flock, I'm betting you're at about 97%...

[Bob78164]

Flock, I'm betting you're at about 97%...

Why are the reasons cited in sss's post wrong? --Bob

[bazodee]

The mantra during the Spring 2020 was to "flatten the curve." It was explained that primary purpose of social distancing methods was to delay the onset of the virus so that everyone didn't get infected at the same time and overload the hospitals.

[tlynn78]

Flock, I'm betting you're at about 97%...

Why are the reasons cited in sss's post wrong? --Bob

Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. I didn't say anything about his reasons, or anything about his post. I don't care enough about his opinion on the study to comment on it. I'm simply placing a metaphorical bet on Flock's prognostication.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, I'm betting you're at about 97%...

Why are the reasons cited in sss's post wrong? --Bob

Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. I didn't say anything about his reasons, or anything about his post. I don't care enough about his opinion on the study to comment on it. I'm simply placing a metaphorical bet on Flock's prognostication.

Darn you gave it away! You know he didn't read anything past the first sentence.
Well, he probably didn't read your whole post either, so we're probably safe.
Hint: I got one right!

[silverscreenselect]

Why are the reasons cited in sss's post wrong? --Bob

Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. I didn't say anything about his reasons, or anything about his post. I don't care enough about his opinion on the study to comment on it. I'm simply placing a metaphorical bet on Flock's prognostication.

Darn you gave it away! You know he didn't read anything past the first sentence.
Well, he probably didn't read your whole post either, so we're probably safe.
Hint: I got one right!

Flock, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or to Bob when you say "he" didn't read anything past the first sentence. But I did read your entire post and I glanced through the study, enough to know two things (1) the exact terminology and statistical analysis were beyond me, and (2) that, as Bob said, the results contraindicate the experiences we've had. So, I tried to find what others who were knowledgeable in the field said about it, which is what I posted.

I'm not sure what your point is here or what your "prediction" is.

[flockofseagulls104]

Hmm. Not much interest in this study aside from the usual suspects. I guess it's because it was largely ignored by the MSM. Surprise.
Not much coverage of the Truckers in Canada either.

[Bob Juch]

Hmm. Not much interest in this study aside from the usual suspects. I guess it's because it was largely ignored by the MSM. Surprise.
Not much coverage of the Truckers in Canada either.

The MSM knows a bullshit study when they see one.

I've been reading a lot about the truckers.

[tlynn78]

Hmm. Not much interest in this study aside from the usual suspects. I guess it's because it was largely ignored by the MSM. Surprise.
Not much coverage of the Truckers in Canada either.

The MSM knows a bullshit study when they see one.

I've been reading a lot about the truckers.

[silverscreenselect]

Not much interest in this study aside from the usual suspects. I guess it's because it was largely ignored by the MSM.

Unlike Fox News, the MSM has more important things to cover than every baseless theory that comes out of right wing sources. The people I quoted in my post on this subject pretty much pointed out the problems with your study. And the studies were limited to the spring and early summer of 2020, before most restrictions were lifted. We saw how that has played out. Remember Herman Cain?

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, not much of a discussion here, which in itself says a lot about the people on this bored.

This is a study from Johns Hopkins, which is not a bastion of right-wing lunatics, even by the standards of the leftists here. As I was told not long ago, I know nothing about statistics. But I bet economists probably do. They can figure out what the numbers indicate. Probably better than physicians or politicians.

They posited a theory, backed up with a lot of research, that the way our 'leaders' went about reacting to the covid pandemic, and still persist on doing today, did very little or nothing to help us. That very few of you even cared enough to comment one way or another is, to me, sad. No one even hinted at thinking about the harm it has done in other areas.

In related news, there is a nationwide convoy, as we speak, of truckers, supported by a good percentage of the general public, going on in Canada. It is a protest against their government's vaccine and mask mandates. It is getting very little coverage in the media from which most of you apparently get all your information. But it is actually happening, and it shows that a great many people agree with the conclusions of this study, peer-reviewed or not. Whether the study is true or not, a lot of people think it is. I guess they are to be ignored for the public good.

It has concerned the Canadian government so much, that their Prime Minister, who is in seclusion, decided to imply that the people who are protesting are, the usual: racists and bigots of one sort or another. Again, not much coverage of it here, but what I have seen are several reports that make mention of nazi or confederate flags being flown during the protests. I can only say, from my own personal view, that if I was at this protest and I saw someone doing that, I would immediately do everything I could, short of violence, to get it taken down. There is NO PLACE for that. Again, I would say from my own personal viewpoint, that I would think it was most likely a false flag attempt by some hard-core leftists to discredit the protests. No thinking person that was truly in sync with the protest would do that, because they would know the media would use that to discredit the protests and everyone who was protesting, which, of course, they tried to do. Those of us who are not left-wing zealots know this. It is done every day.

Regardless, there was no mention or reference to this protest, other than mine, on this bored.

Well, that being said, here are the predictions I made before I posted this thread:

I predict the discussion will follow this general pattern:

- There will be attempts to discredit the study as a whole or one or more of the authors individually.

-There will be links to other studies or opinions that contradict it in some way, thereby discrediting this study. And THOSE studies or opinions will be accepted as gospel.

-My name will be used in some of the responses in some sort of derogatory way.

-I will be surprised if anyone thinks through this and wonders why our leaders pushed this response to the pandemic, or mentions anyone by name except for Donald Trump. IMO This is the main point of the study and its conclusion.

-Dr. Fauci will not be named by any of the main leftwing BBs. You know to whom I refer.

-Because of my preface, some of the more cautious nay sayers may change their normal method of nay saying - but in the end it will all taste the same.

-Bob#s will NOT change his method of reply. He will dispute it in general, not in any specific way, perhaps quoting someone on the overall topic for support. Because he will not even deign to read it. Even the conclusion quoted from the study. He will only respond in a kneejerk fashion, because he doesn't feel the need to consider any counterargument about a subject he feels strongly about. Also, he will have skipped past my first sentence, and won't realize I have made predictions.

-No one will even talk about the ramifications and consequences of the conclusion if it were true. All responses, at least those from the usual suspects, will be from the perspective that the study is invalid.

-BobJuch will make a one line dumb comment.



WRITTEN 2/3/22. I have not edited it since then in any way: FLOCKOFSEAGULL104.

I think I got most correct. I don't think my name was used in a derogatory way specifically. But I think SSS's reference to Fox News can qualify for that, as he thinks that I get all my thoughts from Sean Hannity.

I always wonder at the thought process that if I quote an expert on something, they always have a right-wing bias, but any 'expert' quoted that disputes their findings has no bias at all. Fascinating. I guess left-wing bias doesn't exist.

I think I got my analysis of Bob#'s spot on. Even the part where he didn't bother reading the first post. He had no idea what tlynn was talking about.

Bob Juch was easy-peasy.

Did anyone mention Trump? Maybe not, but he was brought up in Perspectives #3 out of thin air. If I had spurred on the conversation, I'm sure his name would have come up.

Nobody changed their method of responding, either because they didn't read about the predictions or they just can't.

All the other predictions were completely correct.

[jaybee]

You do realize that your predictions boil down to:

1. Some people would disagree in whole or in part with your original posted study. Yup, correct.
2. You predicted who those people would likely to be. Yup again.
3. BobJuch would make a one line dumb comment. Actually, he made two one-line comments. As to if they were dumb or not depends on your point of view.
4. The rest are admittedly a stretch to prove or disprove.

A part of me appreciates your approach to your recent series of 'perspectives" posts. You present things as trying to stimulate and then distance yourself from the discussion. Another part of me sees that colored by some self-applied back slapping. Your intent may be one, or the other or perhaps a mix of both. Doesn't really matter as you certainly have the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you choose. And that applies to all of us, predictable or not.

I've taken part in relatively few of the political discussions here on the Bored. I've been here for over two decades and have yet to see one opinion changed by comments, facts or opinions expressed here (or on any other forum for that matter). But if predictions are the way to go, then I found a bit of literature that accurately predicted just about every political discussion that's been printed here on the BAM Bored - certainly all of them over the past 8 years or so. Totally accurate and amazingly, written about 150 years ago. Now That's a prediction.

And while I do intend all to view this in a lighthearted way, sadly it is very true.

https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant

[silverscreenselect]

Well, not much of a discussion here, which in itself says a lot about the people on this bored.

This is a study from Johns Hopkins, which is not a bastion of right-wing lunatics, even by the standards of the leftists here. As I was told not long ago, I know nothing about statistics. But I bet economists probably do. They can figure out what the numbers indicate. Probably better than physicians or politicians.

They posited a theory, backed up with a lot of research, that the way our 'leaders' went about reacting to the covid pandemic, and still persist on doing today, did very little or nothing to help us. That very few of you even cared enough to comment one way or another is, to me, sad. No one even hinted at thinking about the harm it has done in other areas.

Nobody changed their method of responding, either because they didn't read about the predictions or they just can't.

I've edited your comments down to a few to comment on. I'll admit that, like you, I don't know a lot about statistics. So, I checked on what some other experts have to say on the subject, many of which I quoted in my response. Rather that look at what I posted, you dismissed it because it disagreed with your expert.

The epidemiologists, statisticians, and other experts I cited came from ScienceMediaCentre.org. Here's what Media Bias Fact Check found: "he Science Media Centre is an organization formed to encourage more accurate reporting of science in the media. When notable scientific papers are published, the Science Media Centre will often publish a page of “expert opinion.” The Science Media Centre reviews a scientific study and then has experts within the field critique and offer opinions about the study. A review of the website shows evidence based reporting. The Science Media Centre has been criticized for being business friendly and according to the Guardian they are a lobby group. Overall, the Science Media Centre is a Pro-Science source." A Pro-Science source "consists of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles." Not exactly Mother Jones here.

But they weren't the only group to criticize this study. Here's what Snopes had to say:

The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a “Johns Hopkins study,” this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University. Further, this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Rather, it comes from the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. [One of the authors, Steve H. Hanke] has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism.

While many media reports on this working paper noted that “lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent,” this may give readers a false impression of what this working paper actually found. This paper, however, defines a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).” This means that this study interprets a mask-wearing requirement as a “lockdown,” even if that requirement did not prevent a person from visiting public spaces.

Another point of concern is that 12 of the 34 studies analyzed in this review were, themselves, working papers. The analysis of 34 included 14 in the field of economics and only one in epidemiology. Furthermore, nearly half of the studies analyzed (16 of 34) were published in 2020. The most recent study comes from June 2021, meaning that this meta-analysis contains little to no data related to the delta variant, and no data related to omicron.

In a Feb. 4 thread on Twitter, Meyerowitz-Katz dug into the details of this study and found, among other things, that this paper was not peer-reviewed, that the analysis excluded all studies with a counter-factual model — thereby excluding nearly all epidemiological-focused papers — and that it heavily weighted studies that supported their conclusion. Furthermore, the conclusions of this non-peer reviewed working paper run counter to published studies in academic journals that found lockdowns did prevent COVID-19 deaths. One study, for example, found that lockdown policies helped prevent millions of deaths early in the pandemic.

By the way, here's what the vice dean of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health had to say: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in an emailed statement. "To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies. The working paper did not include new data, and serious questions have already been raised about its methodology. COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a respiratory virus transmitted between people. Reducing transmission of the virus leads to fewer cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Early in the pandemic, when so little was known about COVID-19, stay-at-home policies kept the virus from infecting people and saved many lives."

Bill Hanage, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard said that the questions of whether lockdowns reduce death is in itself not sensible. "The whole premise of it is wrong, because given enough time and no vaccines, if the virus infects enough people, they will die. These interventions are designed to try and mitigate that so that they don't all get sick at the same time, so it’s completely mistaken."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 ... -19-death/

Medpage Today gets a very high rating from Media Bias Fact Check on Factual Reporting and High Credibility. "Medpage Today is an online medical news service provider geared toward health professionals. Medpage Today has sections covering numerous specialties such as cardiology, dermatology, orthopedics, etc. The website covers stories on health care policy, clinical research, general health, medical news, and scientific breakthroughs. Further, all articles are sourced from either peer-reviewed studies or credible media outlets such as The Atlantic and Reuters. They do not produce op-eds, however, they do cover politics as it relates to healthcare such as this COVID Relief Bill Contains Lots of Healthcare Provisions. In general, political coverage is low biased and all information is factual."

Here's what Medpage Today has to say about the study:

"Questions also have been raised about the quality of the included studies. Of the 34 papers ultimately selected, 12 were "working papers" rather than peer-reviewed science. And 14 studies were conducted by economists rather than public health or medical experts, according to Forbes.

Meyerowitz-Katz highlighted his concerns with the paper's inclusion criteria, as it doesn't include "modelled counterfactuals...the most common method used in infectious disease assessments" which excludes "most epidemiological research from the review," he tweeted. He added that the "included studies certainly aren't representative of research as a whole on lockdowns -- not even close. Many of the most robust papers on the impact of lockdowns are, by definition, excluded."

"All of this adds up to a very weird review paper," he tweeted. "The authors exclude many of the most rigorous studies, including those that are the entire basis for their meta-analysis in the first place. ... They then take a number of papers, most of which found that restrictive NPIs had a benefit on mortality, and derive some mathematical estimate from the regression coefficients indicating less benefit than the papers suggest. All of this together means that the actual numbers produced in the review are largely uninterpretable," he tweeted."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-re ... b_o&trw=no

While Fox News ran several stories about how the mainstream media ignored this survey, they didn't produce a single bit of evidence or other source to support the survey. Neither did the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times.

This isn't a case of Report A reaching one conclusion and Report B reaching another. This is a case of Reports B, C, D, E, and dozens of others reaching the opposite conclusion. And contrary to what Flock has to say, one of the authors of the study, Steve Hanke, has a questionable record at best in regard to impartiality.

There's plenty, plenty, plenty more like this out there. And while these sources have no shortage of experts and evidence to back them up, the three authors of the "Johns Hopkins" report seem to be alone.

[flockofseagulls104]

the three authors of the "Johns Hopkins" report seem to be alone.

Um, No, they're most certainly not. Whether you think they came to their conclusions in a mathematically precise fashion or not, many people believe their conclusions are valid. And some of them, statistically speaking, do not even watch Fox News.

But don't worry. These people are all stupider and far less virtuous than you. They don't count.

I think that, in a nutshell, was what I was trying to show in my predictions.

[silverscreenselect]

the three authors of the "Johns Hopkins" report seem to be alone.

Um, No, they're most certainly not. Whether you think they came to their conclusions in a mathematically precise fashion or not, many people believe their conclusions are valid. And some of them, statistically speaking, do not even watch Fox News.

But don't worry. These people are all stupider and far less virtuous than you. They don't count.

I think that, in a nutshell, was what I was trying to show in my predictions.

By alone, I meant alone in the medical/scientific community, which is the only community that counts in determining the validity of a scientific study. How virtuous someone is or what political persuasion they are doesn't change scientific fact. Otherwise, you could take a vote to determine whether the earth orbits around the sun. The vast majority of studies have come to the opposite conclusion, and those studies don't have the flaws pointed out in this one by the medical and scientific experts. Your "experts" engaged in the scientific equivalent of highly selective and arbitrary anecdotal "research" to support a predetermined result.

If your predictions are that rational, scientific-minded people like the Bobs and myself, not to mention the overwhelming majority of public health experts who have studied COVID, will analyze all the information out there rather than blindly accept the one finding that supports a particular view, then you will be correct every time.

[flockofseagulls104]

I will let your most recent response speak for itself once again.

[tlynn78]

I will let your most recent response speak for itself once again.

LOL - they almost always do speak volumes.

[flockofseagulls104]

You do realize that your predictions boil down to:

1. Some people would disagree in whole or in part with your original posted study. Yup, correct.
2. You predicted who those people would likely to be. Yup again.
3. BobJuch would make a one line dumb comment. Actually, he made two one-line comments. As to if they were dumb or not depends on your point of view.
4. The rest are admittedly a stretch to prove or disprove.

A part of me appreciates your approach to your recent series of 'perspectives" posts. You present things as trying to stimulate and then distance yourself from the discussion. Another part of me sees that colored by some self-applied back slapping. Your intent may be one, or the other or perhaps a mix of both. Doesn't really matter as you certainly have the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you choose. And that applies to all of us, predictable or not.

I've taken part in relatively few of the political discussions here on the Bored. I've been here for over two decades and have yet to see one opinion changed by comments, facts or opinions expressed here (or on any other forum for that matter). But if predictions are the way to go, then I found a bit of literature that accurately predicted just about every political discussion that's been printed here on the BAM Bored - certainly all of them over the past 8 years or so. Totally accurate and amazingly, written about 150 years ago. Now That's a prediction.

And while I do intend all to view this in a lighthearted way, sadly it is very true.

https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant

Appreciate your response.
I think, as I ponder on this thread, I wasn't sure at the beginning what my predicting the content of the discussion would be. But it is becoming clearer to me.

My response to SSS was kind of a summary of what I see from politicians, pundits and internet influencers on either side, and especially the bored leftists.

You have a perspective on an issue that's different than mine. I choose not to debate the point or even consider it's merits or ramifications if true. Because I can find people I think know more about it than you, and they agree with me. Furthermore, my feelings are that your perspective is invalid because you, people like you or your perspective are flawed in some way, either intellectually or morally. So your perspective isn't worthy of consideration. End of discussion.

I wish we all can get away from that.

[silverscreenselect]

You have a perspective on an issue that's different than mine. I choose not to debate the point or even consider it's merits or ramifications if true. Because I can find people I think know more about it than you, and they agree with me. Furthermore, my feelings are that your perspective is invalid because you, people like you or your perspective are flawed in some way, either intellectually or morally. So your perspective isn't worthy of consideration. End of discussion.

So, your argument boils down to, "As long as I can find anybody who has any expertise on the issue who agrees with me, I will accept what they have to say and ignore all the contrary evidence." In this case, you are ignoring the vast weight of scientific and medical evidence, the results of many other studies that reached contrary conclusions, and every expert who has spoken out about this study. That may be how your mind works and it's how Fox News and the Washington Times work, but it's not how science works. And the effectiveness of various measures against the disease is a medical and scientific issue.

The experts I quoted, at length, had specific, serious questions about the methodology used in this survey. You didn't contradict or respond to any of this criticisms other than to accuse a lot of reputable scientists of being flawed either intellectually or morally. Fox News didn't contradict these comments. The Wall Street Journal didn't contradict these comments. The Washington Times didn't contradict these comments. What's more, not even the authors of this study contradicted these comments. Several of the sources I cited reached out to the three authors for a response and got none. You would think three authors of a potentially groundbreaking study would be eager to defend their methodology from learned criticism.

You may not have cared to do any research to determine whether this paper is right but I did. And I couldn't find anyone who agreed with these three guys.

I've given up on trying to figure out how your mind works but I think the above quote is very insightful. The scientific method is wrong if it contradicts your previously held opinion.

[Bob Juch]

You do realize that your predictions boil down to:

1. Some people would disagree in whole or in part with your original posted study. Yup, correct.
2. You predicted who those people would likely to be. Yup again.
3. BobJuch would make a one line dumb comment. Actually, he made two one-line comments. As to if they were dumb or not depends on your point of view.
4. The rest are admittedly a stretch to prove or disprove.

A part of me appreciates your approach to your recent series of 'perspectives" posts. You present things as trying to stimulate and then distance yourself from the discussion. Another part of me sees that colored by some self-applied back slapping. Your intent may be one, or the other or perhaps a mix of both. Doesn't really matter as you certainly have the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you choose. And that applies to all of us, predictable or not.

I've taken part in relatively few of the political discussions here on the Bored. I've been here for over two decades and have yet to see one opinion changed by comments, facts or opinions expressed here (or on any other forum for that matter). But if predictions are the way to go, then I found a bit of literature that accurately predicted just about every political discussion that's been printed here on the BAM Bored - certainly all of them over the past 8 years or so. Totally accurate and amazingly, written about 150 years ago. Now That's a prediction.

And while I do intend all to view this in a lighthearted way, sadly it is very true.

https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant

The reason I make one-line comments is that I have better things to worry about.