Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

The only thing that went right was demanding the vax companies “get busy on developing a vax or get out of the business”.
Aside from that, our elected officials did their best.

And before you blame “Our Gubmint”, ask yourself why we have such lousy leaders, given the plethora of “Speak truth to power media outlets”.
Covid has been turned into a divisive orgy of character assassination by the media.

 

New York essentially locked its people in cages while Florida said "**** it" and let people live their lives. If lockdowns were effective we should be able to predict which state would have had the higher death rate.

 

Again, what type of lockdown?

According to the OP’s researchers, lockdown of non-essential businesses reduced Covid19 mortality by 10.6%

 

Nope... COVID's existence in the patient does not suddenly make COVID an "underlying cause of death". An internet discussion forum friend of mine (with the moniker IBDaMann) has taken the time to explain the COVID-death fraud that's going on... here are his words:

We don't have a COVID-19 threat. It is a hoax being sustained by a "COVID Death" reporting scam. Here is how it works.

Step 1. The CDC hijacks the term "Underlying Cause of Death" and uses it to rename "unrelated coincidence." This way, whenever any person who coincidentally might have possibly had some cold or flu symptoms dies of something completely unrelated to COVID-19, the virus can nonetheless be determined to be underlying the cause of death ... not the cause of death but underlying it. Through wordplay, it transforms into the Underlying Cause of Death ... which suddenly makes it a "cause of death." Do you see what they did there? COVID-19 is transformed from "having existed in the patient" to being determined a patient's "cause of death." This is the entry point for the CDC video below. Don't misunderstand, this new term does not replace any other terms; it is simply added to the existing terms Immediate Cause of Death, Conditions Leading to the Immediate Cause of Death and Contributing Factos (which goes in Part II). This term merely serves as the vehicle for getting COVID-19 to be determined to be a cause of death and listed in Section 1 of the death certificate, even when it is an unrelated coincidence.

Step 2. Medical Examiners are instructed to determine that COVID-19 is the Underlying Cause of Death if there is any unverified reason, anecdotal or otherwise, that the deceased might have possibly exhibited some symptoms that perhaps could be interpreted as having had a cold or the flu. The list of "potential symptoms" is long and any "symptom" on that list can be exhibited by someone who is about to die thus giving all medical examiners a broad mandate to determine that COVID-19 was present and underlying the death.

Step 3. (This is the point the CDC video begins). Once COVID-19 is officially determined a "cause of death" (even if technically it isn't) COVID-19 can then be listed in Part 1 of the death certificate as a Cause of Death rather than be listed in Part 2 as merely a potential Contributing Factor. The CDC specifies how the death certificate is to be filled out, i.e. with "COVID-19" hard-coded as the Underlying Cause of Death, denoting that it was a completely unrelated coincidence. The death certificate is to be filled out as follows and no one is to be the wiser:

The actual direct cause of death is to be listed on line "A" under Immediate Cause of Death. Line "B" is for any conditions that actually caused/led to the immediate cause of death. Line "C" can be used to list any conditions that caused the development of the conditions listed in "B." Then whichever line ends up being the last line in the sequence is to be hardcoded with "COVID-19," as the Underlying Cause of Death. All deaths in which the death certificate lists COVID-19 as the Underlying Cause is classified and reported as a COVID Death!

It's all a scam. All deaths could be effectively labelled as COVID deaths.

 

This is the CDC video referenced in the prior post.

 

Quote; It’s all a scam

FALSE!

I watched your video, and you’ve exacerbated its contents with unuendos, and rhetoric.

 

They were essential to the people who owned them or worked at them. New York's employment numbers still haven't reach pre-pandemic levels.

 

There have been a lot of pneumonia deaths with C19. Having said that, they happen for the same reason they do when influenza was the originating virus. Pneumonia happens when the initial condition is not treated, or the individual does not allow time to recover. It's more common in men, because men are inclined to ignore illness.

 

Here’s what I don’t understand;

When influenza A causes a pneumococcal death, it is generally coded as J09.X1

Thus, Influenza due to indentified novel Influenza A virus with pneumonia. Google ICD10 J09.X1

However, according to the below average intelligent people, when Covid19 causes a pneumococcal death, it is a scam because on the death certificate, Covid19 shouldn’t be listed as an Underlying cause of death, thus, said pneumococcal death shouldn’t be counted as a Covid related death???????

What’s your take on this?

 

I remember the first day of "Stay at home" orders for "non essential" workers here in Los Angeles. Many of those staying home had their cars towed the next morning by essential parking enforcement workers!

A friend of mine owns a toy/hobby shop. To avoid being shut down, he added "And bike repair" to his sign and poof! he was suddenly essential!

 

The same Democrat politicians who turned off power to homes because people were gathered in their back yards are the same who were mask free at the Rams game

Rules for thee but not Democrat politicians

 

If anyone asks why I'm not wearing a mask, I reply.....LA Mayor Garcetti says it's ok as long as I hold my breath.

 

No argumentation presented on your part.

 

Funny how when Trump was president the left demanded lockdowns and then blamed Trump for the resulting bad economy and unemployment but soon after Biden became president, most democrats are saying that lockdowns are not necessary.

 

Covid was a convenient thing to use to change how voting was allowed and thus gain full Democrat control

 

I have to agree with this some what

smokers were the least likely group to go to the hospital or die from covid, like 80 to 90% less likely

but, smokers had to go to the store to get their smokes, they could not have these delivered, so they were the most likely to leave the house more often

seems odd that this would be the group with the least issues... Unless moderate tobacco use somehow protected them

the reality is, if states really wanted to keep people locked down, they would have allowed people to order things like alcohol and cigarettes online

 

to be fair, pre-covid, absentee voting favored the right, so only recently have the right become anti-absentee ballot - even Trump voted by Absentee ballot

in areas where the wait was hours, I doubt the right can change this going forward

no longer will republicans intentionally making wait in lines longer in dem voting areas affect the outcome of an election

 

The economy under Trump started to fail before Covid - one indication is the last GDP quarter rate before covid - 1.9% and that was after huge company tax cuts

 

LOL. Assuming that that was actually true, your solution is to have 6% inflation? No matter how much you want to spin that, voters aren't buying it, which has been proven with recent elections and the midterms are looking horrible for the blue team.

 

Assuming? 1.9% GDP rate in the last quarter of 2019 is fact

 

LOL. 5.9% inflation is a fact, and it has not been temporary.

 

The study referred to in the OP was not commissioned or endorsed by John Hopkins University. One of the writers of the study was
a professor in economics from John Hopkins University and all of the authors had economic backgrounds and lacked healthcare
expertise. The paper was not not peer-reviewed or published in a healthcare journal. It is contradicted by other peer-reviewed
studies. The authors definition of a lockdown is strange and absurd - “The authors define lockdown ‘as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention’.

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19? (forbes.com)

Did Pandemic Lockdowns Do Little to Prevent COVID Deaths? (webmd.com)

Feb. 4, 2022 -- An analysis from a trio of economists says pandemic lockdowns during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did little to reduce the number of COVID-related deaths.

Lockdowns in the United States and Europe reduced COVID-related deaths by only .2%, and shelter-in-placed orders reduced deaths by 2.9%, the study says.

The findings, which have not been peer reviewed, conflict with previous studies that found lockdowns worked.

One published in July 2020 in the British journal BMJ, for example, found that lockdowns helped reduce the number of COVID-19 cases.

And a May 2020 study out of Columbia University found nearly that 36,000 American lives would have been spared if strict social distancing measures had been enacted across the country just 1 week earlier than they were.

In the new paper, published in the journal Studies in Applied Economics, the authors looked at data from 34 other studies published by July 1, 2020, during the early part of the global pandemic. They looked at mortality rates but didn’t consider how lockdowns might have affected the number of infections or virus-related hospitalizations. They also didn’t use studies that forecast deaths.

The authors define lockdowns as “compulsory nonpharmaceutical interventions … that restrict internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.” They didn’t consider government recommendations, information campaigns, mass testing, or vaccine measures.

Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, senior author on the first ever study comparing the effect of lockdowns, question how the authors of the new study define “lockdown.”

“The authors define lockdown ‘as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention’. This would make a mask wearing policy a lockdown,” Bhatt said in a statement. “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 Paper below discusses the effectiveness of lockdowns throughout the world and graphically displays how well lockdowns have worked
in a number of countries. Lockdowns did not work very well in the U.S. compared to most countries.

Is Lockdown Effective in Limiting SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic Progression?—a Cross-Country Comparative Evaluation Using Epidemiokinetic Tools (nih.gov)
Published online 2021 Jan 13.








Government-imposed social distancing was shown to reduce the daily case growth rate over time and presumed to decrease R0 mainly by reducing β. Our findings supported that coherent lockdown strategies divided t1/2γ by ~ 6.2-fold and R0 by ~ 3.3-fold. We confirmed that lockdown alters inter-individual SARS-CoV-2 transmission but showed that R0 is preferentially steered by γ than β (~ 6.2- and ~ 1.5-fold decrease in Sweden versus group 2 countries, respectively).

 

:

It has already been posted once and debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a cyclone.

You DO get that there are specialist fields of study right? That it is NOT a good idea for your dentist to remove your appendix?

The authors are economists not epidemiologists, this is a “pre-print” so no peer review (quality control) it is a hideously poor “research paper” which is actually a study in how NOT to conduct a systematic review and meta analysis

 

And the morbidity rate??? The cost of healthcare (ICU is EXPENSIVE) cost of rehabilitation? It is going to ge interesting to finally crunch the total health care costs a compare them to the “lockdown” costs. Especially non-vaccinated versus vaccinated profiles