Why did media not cover review that found lockdowns didn’t work? MailOnline was one of just three major outlets to report major findings while BBC, Sky and the Guardian looked the other way

10 comments

  1. Because its cherry picked horseshit written by known anti lockdown economists.

    Edit:
    Curiosity got the better of me, I’m almost glad it did

    >He added that the report was done by *’highly reputable’ economists* and added value to the debate around the  use of draconian restrictions early in the Covid crisis. 

    Comedy gold

  3. >A review by Johns Hopkins University economists

    Of course a study by economists would be biased.

  7. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but!

  9. I took a look at a few of the studies they’re citing and I can’t see how they got the numbers they’ve quoted. [Chaudhry et al](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext) is a good example that’s free online. This study says Chaudhry provides an estimate of 0% effect from lockdowns on mortality. But here’s what the paper actually says:

    > The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates.

    I have no idea how you get from that to zero.

    Here’s another, [Bonardi et al](https://unassumingeconomist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/fast-and-local.pdf), again presented by the metanlysis as supporting 0% effect from lockdowns. And the study says:

    > The first key insight from our study is that lockdowns are indeed effective measures to stop both the growth of new cases and of the number of deaths.

    > With the covid-19 episode so far, lockdown measures have prevented many deaths -our estimates are that about 650,000 deaths have been averted- or more than three deaths were prevented for every death that occurred.

    I can’t see a specific number, they’ve looked at progression over time, but it is completely absurd to suggest that study is saying there is no effect from lockdowns when it explicitly states and supports the opposite.

    Their justification for this, in the sources list, is also absurd. They’ve decided that since some countries went for lighter lockdowns similar to the “voluntary lockdown” in Sweden, that means they can ignore anything that wasn’t a “severe” lockdown, despite their own methodology defining a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention”.

    The Skidmore paper is a little bizarre, and I couldn’t tell if it was reporting accurately – but reading the [author’s blog](https://mark-skidmore.com/2021/01/07/chaos-at-the-capitol/) might be enlightening (he’s a 9/11 truther and an antivaxxer, make of that what you will). This paper reads a lot like a hydroxychloroquine puff piece, hard to take it seriously.

    Sorry, this analysis appears, at least in my lay opinion, to be pretty close to garbage.

  10. The mail will report anything that half looks like news when you squint. BBC, the guardian and even sky have standards

Leave a Reply