New Johns Hopkins Study: “Lockdowns Have Had Little To No Public Health Effects” And “Imposed Enormous Economic and Social Costs” (1 Viewer)

[VySky]

Trump was right again. The idiots at team Biden made the cure worse than the virus.

So we have already been shown that mask don’t work but dam the torpedoes.

Wear 3 of them.

Then the lockdowns so valued in the blue states. Well guess what? A John’s Hopkins study has found they didn’t work either.

Brilliant

============

A new study out of the renowned Johns Hopkins University has concluded that global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

The study was authored by Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

The authors wrote that “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

New Johns Hopkins Study: “Lockdowns Have Had Little To No Public Health Effects” And “Imposed Enormous Economic and Social Costs”

summit.news

 

[Airyaman]

You posted a thread at ~12 AM CST and now this one...do you not sleep, or do your obsessions keep you awake?

 

[Michael Cole]

Team Biden...global lockdowns...starting when Trump was POTUS...

Yeah, that's congruent.

More Biden Bitch Syndrome.

 

[j brown's body]

If it helped get him defeated, it was surely worth it.

Good for Trump for being "right again" tho.

 

[Sand Castle]

Trump was right again. The idiots at team Biden made the cure worse than the virus.

So we have already been shown that mask don’t work but dam the torpedoes.

Wear 3 of them.

Then the lockdowns so valued in the blue states. Well guess what? A John’s Hopkins study has found they didn’t work either.

Brilliant

============

A new study out of the renowned Johns Hopkins University has concluded that global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

The study was authored by Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

The authors wrote that “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

New Johns Hopkins Study: “Lockdowns Have Had Little To No Public Health Effects” And “Imposed Enormous Economic and Social Costs”

summit.news

Next time I get sick I'm going to an economist, I mean who needs medical professionals!
Trump is dumb as a bag of rocks and so are his followrs.

The study is a working paper that isn’t peer-reviewed; authors of the paper are economists with no expertise in epidemiology

The paper was described by several outlets as a “Johns Hopkins study”. This description is problematic for several reasons. One reason is that only one of the three authors, Steve Hanke, is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University.

The second is that the study wasn’t endorsed by the university. Finally, describing the paper as a “study” could mislead readers into believing that the paper is a peer-reviewed published study, which it is not. Even the authors themselves described it as a working paper, meaning that it is still a work in progress and hasn’t been peer-reviewed by other scientists

Misrepresents source: The working paper’s analysis included some studies that actually concluded lockdowns to be beneficial in reducing COVID-19 mortality. But the paper’s authors instead represented these studies as showing that lockdowns were detrimental.

Misleading: Several reports about the working paper labeled it as a “Johns Hopkins study”. However, only one of the paper’s three authors is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University and the paper wasn’t endorsed by the university. Experts also pointed out certain issues in the paper’s methodology that call the reliability of its conclusions into question

Claims that a "Johns Hopkins study" showed lockdowns are ineffective at reducing COVID-19 mortality are based on a working paper with questionable methods

A lockdown is a non-pharmaceutical intervention that is typically defined as a measure that requires people to stay at home and avoid activity outside the home involving public contact. A lockdown can comprise different restrictions, ranging from stay-at-home orders to business closures. The...

healthfeedback.org

 

[VanceMack]

Fauci has admitted the same...but invariably the excuse is also always the same. Sure...we dont know...and most of it was built on lies...but surely we saved lives...I mean...we must have...right? Imagine how many more would be dead if we HADNT implemented the measures people so willingly swallowed...that have been proven to have had little to no measurable effect...

 

[VanceMack]

Next time I get sick I'm going to an economist, I mean who needs medical professionals!
Trump is dumb as a bag of rocks and so are his followrs.

The study is a working paper that isn’t peer-reviewed; authors of the paper are economists with no expertise in epidemiology

The paper was described by several outlets as a “Johns Hopkins study”. This description is problematic for several reasons. One reason is that only one of the three authors, Steve Hanke, is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University.

The second is that the study wasn’t endorsed by the university. Finally, describing the paper as a “study” could mislead readers into believing that the paper is a peer-reviewed published study, which it is not. Even the authors themselves described it as a working paper, meaning that it is still a work in progress and hasn’t been peer-reviewed by other scientists

Misrepresents source: The working paper’s analysis included some studies that actually concluded lockdowns to be beneficial in reducing COVID-19 mortality. But the paper’s authors instead represented these studies as showing that lockdowns were detrimental.

Misleading: Several reports about the working paper labeled it as a “Johns Hopkins study”. However, only one of the paper’s three authors is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University and the paper wasn’t endorsed by the university. Experts also pointed out certain issues in the paper’s methodology that call the reliability of its conclusions into question

Claims that a "Johns Hopkins study" showed lockdowns are ineffective at reducing COVID-19 mortality are based on a working paper with questionable methods

A lockdown is a non-pharmaceutical intervention that is typically defined as a measure that requires people to stay at home and avoid activity outside the home involving public contact. A lockdown can comprise different restrictions, ranging from stay-at-home orders to business closures. The...

healthfeedback.org

True believers will never admit they were wrong...even after the mask mandates, social distancing, and killing the economy were all proven to be agenda and not science driven.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This was already debunked.

Authors were economists and not epidemiologists
Paper has not been peer reviewed.

 

[PeteEU]

Odd they worked every else..

 

[VySky]

This was already debunked.

Authors were economists and not epidemiologists
Paper has not been peer reviewed.

Debunk my a$$

Yea, so many here can debunk Johns Hopkins studies. LMAO

 

[Slartibartfast]

Debunk my a$$

Yea, so many here can debunk Johns Hopkins studies. LMAO

Its not from Johns Hopkins


"The views expressed in each working
paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are
affiliated with." -- page 2

But from independent researchers hijacking JH's good name and were not endorsed by JH.

Sorry VySky, you were bamboozled yet again.

 

[BlueTex]

Trump was right again. The idiots at team Biden made the cure worse than the virus.

So we have already been shown that mask don’t work but dam the torpedoes.

Wear 3 of them.

Then the lockdowns so valued in the blue states. Well guess what? A John’s Hopkins study has found they didn’t work either.

Brilliant

============

A new study out of the renowned Johns Hopkins University has concluded that global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

The study was authored by Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

The authors wrote that “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

New Johns Hopkins Study: “Lockdowns Have Had Little To No Public Health Effects” And “Imposed Enormous Economic and Social Costs”

summit.news

Johns Hopkins: No Evidence that Lockdowns reduce Covid Mortality.

John Hopkins has never been noted to be a Trump-directed or even Trump-supporting organization. It's really been a go-to source for information, analysis and data reflected in the statistics related to Covid during the Pandemic. They have conducted a study on the impacts of Covid starting with...

debatepolitics.com

 

[tres borrachos]

Trump was right again. The idiots at team Biden made the cure worse than the virus.

So we have already been shown that mask don’t work but dam the torpedoes.

Wear 3 of them.

Then the lockdowns so valued in the blue states. Well guess what? A John’s Hopkins study has found they didn’t work either.

Brilliant

============

A new study out of the renowned Johns Hopkins University has concluded that global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

The study was authored by Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

The authors wrote that “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

New Johns Hopkins Study: “Lockdowns Have Had Little To No Public Health Effects” And “Imposed Enormous Economic and Social Costs”

summit.news

"New study"? Your article is dated February 2. Today is March 31. Did they not teach you how to read a calendar at Trump University?

 

[party free]

Its not from Johns Hopkins


"The views expressed in each working
paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are
affiliated with." -- page 2

But from independent researchers hijacking JH's good name and were not endorsed by JH.

Sorry VySky, you were bamboozled yet again.

And this is where the paid trolls hobble off to find another whopper to use for another dumb thread.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Sorry VySky, you were bamboozled yet again.

He just looks for any propaganda he can push.

 

[Sand Castle]

He just looks for any propaganda he can push.

Actually, the poster read the title, did no cross referencing.

Ignorant post to appeal to the ignorant

 

[CaughtInThe]

Actually, the poster read the title, did no cross referencing.

Ignorant post to appeal to the ignorant

he plays the Fox News game.

he finds and churns out the stories he wants everyone to hear and the title is all that matters. it's all about the volume.


i think he's winning the propaganda war because he's constantly keeping his opponents on defense. the way to beat him is do what he does OUTSIDE of his threads (go on the offensive).

 

[NuffSaid]

He just looks for any propaganda he can push.

He believes eye doctor Rand Paul over actual epidemiologists when it comes to COVID.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

They are economists, they know shit about the health benefits. Also, yeah, the entire world sans a few countries put in measures to prevent the infection. Billion dollar entertainment and sports lost billions by locking down during the outbreak, long before any other measures were in place. More trolling right wing bullshit