And at the cost of record high inflation for the foreseeable future. Sure was worth it.
>Critics of the study claimed the authors have conflicting interests, particularly Prof Hanke, who has been an outspoken critic of restrictions that damage the economy.
>
>He also voiced his support for the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for the shielding of the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to spread through society, allowing the build-up of natural immunity.
Yeah gonna have to call bullshit on this “research”. Trying to claim lockdowns dont limit the spread of covid because it stopped people from going on a nice trip to the zoo and people would have just “done the right thing” anyway is farcical levels of wishful thinking.
Ignoring the impact on the health system if it had been allowed to let rip
Torygraph continuing their “lockdowns are evil and let nature decide who lives” articles
That sounds almost impossible. People didn’t change behavior that much pre lockdown. Some did, but many especially younger people that weren’t too scared didn’t. I’ll go ahead and admit I didn’t myself change my behavior too much so that I don’t just talk about some abstract “people” – didn’t expect things to get as bad as they did. Even if the peak wouldn’t have been higher, it absolutely would have been longer without restrictions.
Daily reminder that ‘research’ is almost always to prove something from someone with an agenda.
See a lot of people crying peer review on things to, as if that isnt a flawed system at times.
So restrictions were effective but enforcing them ( at let us remember a time when we had little information and no vaccines) was only a bit better than hoping that people did those restrictions by their own choice ?(Though of course some groups have also told us that encouraging people to be cautious was also bad because it made them irrationally afraid. ) And making it official damaged the economy far more than having people do it themselves?
I mean I think there are sensible things here like we should ‘encourage’ people to meet outside so they don’t ‘secretly’ meet inside… ( Though don’t forget these are the people who would of course act sensibly without official restrictions).
We do need a good cost/benefit analysis of which restrictions have the most effect with the least problems and which need state backing or can be conpleteky voluntary.
This study is certainly not conclusive on this subject. However I have always struggled with how easily our freedom was removed at the whim of some flawed scientific models and populist politicians. Hopefully the data analyzed and learned from and explicit plans are agreed democratically ahead of time in the event anything like this ever happens again.
Clickbait title. This is comparing a legally enforced lockdown to voluntary measures, not compared to no measures at all.
> However, the researchers found that legally enforced lockdowns were only a tiny bit better at cutting deaths than allowing the public to follow recommendations including working from home and limiting social contact, as happened in countries such as Sweden.
The measures themselves saved lives:
> They found that some measures did save lives. Closing non-essential businesses was estimated to have lowered mortality by about 10.6 per cent, a fall largely driven by closing drinking establishments.
> Shutting schools probably also lowered deaths by 4.4 per cent, while asking people to stay at home prevented 2.9 per cent of deaths and border controls roughly 0.1 per cent.
9 comments
Sarah Knapton: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/covid-lockdown-prevented-only-0-2pc-of-deaths-in-first-wave/ar-AATpz0M?ocid=msedgntp
And at the cost of record high inflation for the foreseeable future. Sure was worth it.
>Critics of the study claimed the authors have conflicting interests, particularly Prof Hanke, who has been an outspoken critic of restrictions that damage the economy.
>
>He also voiced his support for the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for the shielding of the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to spread through society, allowing the build-up of natural immunity.
Yeah gonna have to call bullshit on this “research”. Trying to claim lockdowns dont limit the spread of covid because it stopped people from going on a nice trip to the zoo and people would have just “done the right thing” anyway is farcical levels of wishful thinking.
Ignoring the impact on the health system if it had been allowed to let rip
Torygraph continuing their “lockdowns are evil and let nature decide who lives” articles
That sounds almost impossible. People didn’t change behavior that much pre lockdown. Some did, but many especially younger people that weren’t too scared didn’t. I’ll go ahead and admit I didn’t myself change my behavior too much so that I don’t just talk about some abstract “people” – didn’t expect things to get as bad as they did. Even if the peak wouldn’t have been higher, it absolutely would have been longer without restrictions.
Daily reminder that ‘research’ is almost always to prove something from someone with an agenda.
See a lot of people crying peer review on things to, as if that isnt a flawed system at times.
So restrictions were effective but enforcing them ( at let us remember a time when we had little information and no vaccines) was only a bit better than hoping that people did those restrictions by their own choice ?(Though of course some groups have also told us that encouraging people to be cautious was also bad because it made them irrationally afraid. ) And making it official damaged the economy far more than having people do it themselves?
I mean I think there are sensible things here like we should ‘encourage’ people to meet outside so they don’t ‘secretly’ meet inside… ( Though don’t forget these are the people who would of course act sensibly without official restrictions).
We do need a good cost/benefit analysis of which restrictions have the most effect with the least problems and which need state backing or can be conpleteky voluntary.
This study is certainly not conclusive on this subject. However I have always struggled with how easily our freedom was removed at the whim of some flawed scientific models and populist politicians. Hopefully the data analyzed and learned from and explicit plans are agreed democratically ahead of time in the event anything like this ever happens again.
Clickbait title. This is comparing a legally enforced lockdown to voluntary measures, not compared to no measures at all.
> However, the researchers found that legally enforced lockdowns were only a tiny bit better at cutting deaths than allowing the public to follow recommendations including working from home and limiting social contact, as happened in countries such as Sweden.
The measures themselves saved lives:
> They found that some measures did save lives. Closing non-essential businesses was estimated to have lowered mortality by about 10.6 per cent, a fall largely driven by closing drinking establishments.
> Shutting schools probably also lowered deaths by 4.4 per cent, while asking people to stay at home prevented 2.9 per cent of deaths and border controls roughly 0.1 per cent.