Did So-Called 'Johns Hopkins Study' Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective?

[Qutzupalotl]

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

Have you seen the so-called “Johns Hopkins study” that’s been making the social media and Bill Maher rounds lately? Some folks have been asserting that this “Johns Hopkins study” somehow showed that Covid-19 “lockdowns” have been essentially useless. If you haven’t seen what they’ve been referring to, could it possibly be because there’s been so-called “a full-on media blackout” of this so-called “Johns Hopkins study,” as an article for Fox News has claimed ? Or maybe, just maybe, this “Johns Hopkins study” didn’t receive much press because it wasn’t exactly what some people have been claiming that it is.
….

OK, changing definitions aside, did this working paper really provide enough evidence to support its bold claims? In a word, no. In two words, heck no. The authors claimed that they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. That should mean that they should have considered and included all published peer-reviewed studies relevant to the topic at hand. Yet, this working paper did not include or even acknowledge many such studies that have shown the benefits of NPI’s such as face mask wearing and social distancing without explaining why the three authors excluded such studies.

Of the 34 “studies” included in the review, 12 of them were actually working papers. In fact, 14 of the “studies” were actually from economists with only one being from epidemiologist. This is odd since most of the key NPI research studies have been conducted by epidemiologists, medical researchers, and other public health experts. To qualify as a meta-analysis, a study needs to fulfill established criteria, which includes demonstrating that you’ve included all of the studies that have been published. Without providing clear evidence that you have done so, instead of “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” would a better title of this working paper have been “Stuff that We Selected to Support Our Point of View?”

More:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/

[Walleye]

1. We never really had "lockdowns" we don't have them now

It’s just one of those words the right wing likes to fixate on, such as woke.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Plus the paper's authors definition of lockdown was overly broad:

what did the authors consider lockdowns? Well, according to the working paper, “lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).”

Holy changing definitions, Batman. By Herby, Jonung, and Hanke’s definition, even face mask requirements would be considered a “lockdown,” right? After all, face masks are a NPI since you don’t eat or inject face masks into you. Yet, how many times have your heard when wearing a mask, “how’s that lockdown of your face going?”

[Walleye]

5. And whatever they called it not everybody complied so it was less effective

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Correct. I'm so tired of hearing,

“We already tried lockdowns and they didn't work,” usually from the same people who belittle me for “complying.”

No self-awareness with these people.

[Lonestarblue]

18. They didn't work because too many people did not want them to work.

And after vaccines were available, too many people did not want the Biden administration to be successful in dealing with the pandemic when Trump had failed, so they refused the shots or, like many Republican politicians, got the shots and then lied about it.

[Klaralven]

9. No actual lockdowns, but we did close or sharply curtail certain businesses and organizations

So we did a lot of economic damage without doing much to stop the spread.

It would have been better had we focused on social distancing, hygiene, mask wearing and similar measures to stop the spread.

[Walleye]

10. Yes but it was the Trump administration that decided to close everything

He wouldn’t listen to Fauci he wouldn’t wear a mask. I remember when he said choosing when to open back up was the most important decision of his life. Then two weeks later he decided economy was tanking and he had to backtrack. Incompetent bumble fuck

[FakeNoose]

13. That happened before we had the vaccines to save us

Once the vaccines were being distributed - about January 2021 - it should have been only a matter of a few months before EVERYONE had access to the life-saving shots. Well in truth it actually was available to everyone by about June or July last year. Trouble was with the idiots who rejected the vaccine and we all know what happened.

The fact is that we really did need the "lockdown" in March of 2020, but maybe not in all states equally. Certain states were devastated by Covid at that time, while others were barely touched at that time. (They got it later on.) The whole thing was so poorly managed that it depresses me just to think about it.

[JohnSJ]

2. Social media and anti-vaxer bill Maher. Nuff said. People should go to the OPs link to get the

full analysis

[Walleye]

7. He's a Republican

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Thank you. It was such a good article, I had trouble picking an excerpt.

I hope DUers will read the whole thing. It's enlightening and funny.

[JohnSJ]

11. You did a great job Qutzupalotl

[keithbvadu2]

4. Facts, studies, research, conclusions, and conspiracy theories

Research starts with all of the facts and comes to a conclusion. Conspiracy theories usually start with a conclusion and cherry pick only the facts that support the conclusion. This way the conspiracy theory sounds very logical and persuasive

[gldstwmn]

12. There's also a great thread on this by Eric Feigl-Ding:

Link to tweet

?t=D352nqGOqas4BHMW_IJc0w&s=19

[Orrex]

14. I'm amazed that nearly 100% of experts in the media are telling us to get back to normal

It's inspiring to see such agreement on such a contentious issue. Surely no aggressively pro-business agenda is behind it!

[thatdemguy]

15. my father

Is a graduate from Johns Hopkins School of public health, developed what is pretty much the standard for transporting and dealing with TB patients around the country, and has personally known Fauci for over 30 years.

He disagrees with any sort of lock down, unless self done. IE you have an issue like kemo, or copd etc. Things that can make covid worse for you then you stay home on your own. He is for masks, but only for surgical style ones, others he says do nothing, even n95 ones. He says n95 are too easy to not seal properly.

He is for vaccines, but not for everyone. He says there is issues they are discovering with them, and its not everyone but they are looking at specific things for specific people.

He was very worried about covid when it was first coming around, but now says it will be like the flu. Its here to stay and we will all get it, even if we dont know it. He states, just like the flu we wont be able to stop it. Yes vaccines help with severity and they are over all good. But he is not for 100% vaccines for everyone.

Either he is right or wrong I guess we will see in a few more years

[yaesu]

16. Lockdowns saved 100's of thousands of lives I have no doubt, a stopgap to get us to vaccination

get us to a point where vaccination could be delivered, we know how many essential workers were lost & those losses were massive.

[PirateRo]

17. Discusses by Dr. John Campbell on youtube

https://m.

The view is one of economists vs. doctors. It looks at the metadata to arrive at its conclusion.