It will be interesting to see how the “community” reacts to the results of this massive research project. By ‘community,’ I mean Covidiots, cultists, misnamed policy experts, politicians, and bureaucrats. The people whose policies did more harm than good. The Experts™ who followed The Science™.
How will it make them feel to know that we were right? The science before COVID that suggested lockdowns were a bad idea has been confirmed. More significant harms outweigh any potential public health benefit.
That’s the conclusion of this research project, a ‘Literature Review, and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality‘ from Johns Hopkins.
Enough foreplay.
The question is did Non-Pharmaceitucal Interventions(NPI) help. The answer is no.
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. …
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. …
“What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?” We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none.
The research suggests potential benefits (minor) in some instances for specific policies, but the bigger question, ignored or slapped down by “the Experts,” is at what cost?
If lockdowns had no discernable effect on mortality, there’s little point in using them, especially if there are more significant downsides.
Addiction, domestic abuse, suicide, delayed scanning, or treatment for the things that kill most people like heart conditions and cancers. The stress created by the response induces a physical state more susceptible to infection or disease. The loss of life years and learning. Food shortages, supply chain breakdowns, job and business loss, economic decline, poverty, hunger, fear, and on and on.
The report is heavy, and if you dig, you will find tidbits to please almost anyone of any opinion, but that was the point. Evaluate all the available research and look for data that could help resolve the question. Was the policy with the cost.
The answer is no.
The answer was no before they tried it and was misguided throughout, but some still cling (bitterly?) to these policies.
Stop clinging to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it. Especially this one. It is killing people. It has killed them and will kill many more. If you continue to insist that you are enforcing them in the interest of public health, that’s coming around to bite you in your stupid ass.
The longer you wait, the bigger the bite.
Oh, and that’s without ever getting into the harms related to the so-called cure. Your policy prescriptions have been a near-total failure with massive multi-generational fallout.
This means that people who believe you had ulterior motives are paying you a compliment. If you were not deliberately acting on some other set of priorities, you must be a complete f**king incompetent—a menace.
You are the more significant threat to public health, and you need to go away. Quit, retire, resign, or get removed from your office, whatever it is, by more competent minds.
So, which is it? Are you trying to kill people, or are their deaths an accident?
