Anybody want a Corona?

[Bammer]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

[4/5]

Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not arguing for lockdowns at all, I just think it's a little more complex than it's being painted here by the forum's biggest headline reader.

History will look back on all this shit as the wrong response.

I think this is almost certainly true. You'll be able to tell when the architects of various lockdowns start to suggest that they had never been for lockdowns in the first place.

[Mickey]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

[Bammer]

Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not arguing for lockdowns at all, I just think it's a little more complex than it's being painted here by the forum's biggest headline reader.

History will look back on all this shit as the wrong response.

I think this is almost certainly true. You'll be able to tell when the architects of various lockdowns start to suggest that they had never been for lockdowns in the first place.

Wait are you talking about the defund police movement?

[Bammer]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

i had to look that up

[Mickey]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

i had to look that up

Met that guy in Vegas a few years before he went full insane.

[Bammer]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

i had to look that up

Met that guy in Vegas a few years before he went full insane.

Actually I think you lost me here

[Mickey]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

i had to look that up

Met that guy in Vegas a few years before he went full insane.

Actually I think you lost me here

https://substack.com/profile/35348090-wasbappin

[Bammer]

1. Whatever it is that Bashar al-Assad is doing right now

Now that's bappin

i had to look that up

Met that guy in Vegas a few years before he went full insane.

Actually I think you lost me here

https://substack.com/profile/35348090-wasbappin

Yeah sorry still not tracking.

Anyway,

2. Electing Biden as a reverse course from Trump
3. Electing Trump as a reverse course from Obama

[Bammer]

You could flip-flop 2 and 3 if you like.

[McParadigm]

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted.

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-loc ... ate-study/

[4/5]

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted.

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-loc ... ate-study/

Yeah economics meta studies from economics organizations really are the worst. Name-dropping Cato is a scare tactic I guess?

Epidemiology lol.

They do seem to have defined 'lockdown' very broadly, I agree with that. The first six months thing is misleading since that's both when there were more lockdowns/NPIs and the timeframe that many of these studies that they analyzed covered. That doesn't seem problematic at first glance, but I'm open to evidence that these decisions were intentional to help them get their preferred result.

Well, yes. But it also reaffirms the pre-Covid scientific consensus regarding lockdowns so it isn't as if this study is making some off the wall or inconceivable claim. It's merely an uncomfortable one for public health officials who suddenly embraced lockdowns in March 2020 and the people who supported them.

[Birds in Hell]

I live in Western Australia and we have had a hard border with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world pretty much since this whole thing began. We have pretty much had life as normal these last few years, only locked down for 2 weeks at a time a total of 3 times, a few months of mandated mask wearing and that's about it. It sucks for anyone who wants to see family over East or for those trying to visit back here, but truth be told its been pretty damn good this whole time.

In total since this whole thing began we have had 1,609 cases as of yesterday. That's total cases. 9 deaths total.

Our borders were meant to open up on the 5th of Feb but our Premier (think Governor if you are in the US) baulked the other week because of the huge case numbers in the Eastern States. I'm down with it to be honest, but I understand why a lot of people aren't. But here's the thing - our Premier seems to actually care about people and their lives, he probably should get his "Politician Card" revoked. He had the balls to come out and say that the original plan to open up was based on Delta data, not Omicron, which was a whole new kettle of fish.

Anyway, its probably all moot now. We are getting 20 odd cases a day now and Omicron is out and about. The borders will open up soon enough of course, they kinda have to I guess. But fuck me if I haven't enjoyed the peace and relative calm of living in my little covid free bubble these past few years.

Its coming and I'm worried, not gonna lie. Once it hits we'll be the same as everywhere else, up to our necks in it, hospitals over run and all the rest. Its been the best of runs, for sure, I guess everything has to end sometimes.

Congrats, you guys beat the science!

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted.

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-loc ... ate-study/

Western Australia didn't have a lockdown, they had a hard border closure.

Easy to leave a relatively COVID free life if you can't get in or out.

[Higgs]

Truth. No lockdown except for 3 x 2 week periods or something.

We have simply used our particular geography to our advantage.

SA did as well for most of the pandemic.

This wasn't a viable option for the US of course. No way to put up any state hard borders.

But yeah, lockdowns are definitely not the same as hard borders. The opposite almost...

[macphisto]

I envy your hard borders.

[Higgs]

They will certainly be remembered fondly by us Waussies for sure.

[B]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

[Bammer]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

I wonder if the mayor of Los Angeles or the governor of California have seen this chart.

[simple schoolboy]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

I wonder if the mayor of Los Angeles or the governor of California have seen this chart.

Why did the CDC not include the effectiveness of "holding your breath"?

[B]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

I wonder if the mayor of Los Angeles or the governor of California have seen this chart.

Fuckin' Newsom!