Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Study claims lockdowns may have no clear benefit over voluntary measures

#1
C C Offline
COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns...ws-1561656

INTRO: A study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation on January 5, and analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020...
- - - - - -

New Study: Lockdowns Didn’t Stop The Spread Of COVID-19 After All
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey...-covid-19/

EXCERPTS: As always, approach all stories that headline the word “study” with some caution. [...] one study does not a scientific foundation make. However, the findings in this study of the impact of lockdowns on COVID-19 transmission do seem to fit our own observations, especially in the pandemic’s second and third waves...

[...] In other words, despite the wide variance in types of social interventions, the harsher lockdowns provided no significant improvement in reducing community transmission than did the softer interventions did — social distancing, mask-wearing, and perhaps capacity restrictions. Their conclusion — the cost/benefit ratio for harsh interventions doesn’t justify them...
- - - - -

Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

ABSTRACT: Background and Aims. The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).

Methods. We first estimate COVID‐19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. Using first‐difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not implement mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).

Results. Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI ‐5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (‐12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.

Conclusions. While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Exactly what I've said since the very beginning of the pandemic. For one, human nature alone dictates that something mandated will be resisted.

But the damage done to the economy, people's livelihoods and mental and non-Covid related physical health, children's social development, etc. cannot be undone. History will not look kindly on all the authoritarian pricks who demanded that they knew better than the citizens themselves.
Reply
#3
Zinjanthropos Offline
Ever notice how many studies contain the words: may, might, could, should, maybe, potentially, if, possibly, perhaps, seems, believe, think, appears...

See if I can avoid them here....Those friggin’ words are everywhere and when you ponder it, this is how we speak to one another. No one likes to commit including myself, here anyways. Committing to an idea/thought is hard to do and the biggest reason We don’t is to not be seen as stupid or insulting. Is this meant to appeal to the left, verbiage which has crept into our daily language? It’s fake in so many ways.

I’ll give credit to Syne for telling it like he sees it. It’s startling to most of us but look how effective it is. No wishy-washy, it’s straight to the point. It takes time getting comfortable with when you’re not used to it. In my working life I dealt with many field crews and the banter between them would make a nun blush but they got along, no one was hurt, they were friends after work, and their work was impeccable. Today people murder one another for showing the slightest disrespect.
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
(Jan 16, 2021 01:54 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Ever notice how many studies contain the words: may, might, could, should, maybe, potentially, if, possibly, perhaps, seems, believe, think, appears...

See if I can avoid them here....Those friggin’ words are everywhere and when you ponder it, this is how we speak to one another. No one likes to commit including myself, here anyways. Committing to an idea/thought is hard to do and the biggest reason We don’t is to not be seen as stupid or insulting. Is this meant to appeal to the left, verbiage which has crept into our daily language? It’s fake in so many ways.

I’ll give credit to Syne for telling it like he sees it. It’s startling to most of us but look how effective it is. No wishy-washy, it’s straight to the point. It takes time getting comfortable with when you’re not used to it. In my working life I dealt with many field crews and the banter between them would make a nun blush but they got along, no one was hurt, they were friends after work, and their work was impeccable. Today people murder one another for showing the slightest disrespect.

Thanks, Zin. I was about to reply making the connection to how I post, but I saw you already did.

Most people don't like to make claims and stand by them. That has always puzzled me on discussion forums. Seems like a lot of people are just seeking approval. But hey, maybe I'm desensitizing a few people to straight forward discussion.
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Jan 16, 2021 01:54 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Ever notice how many studies contain the words: may, might, could, should, maybe, potentially, if, possibly, perhaps, seems, believe, think, appears...

Science is tentative, though, barring an impressive tally of replications and usefulness in engineering and technology. If anything, the social-psychological disciplines in the past did grab certain research results and run with them as if they were Gospel Truth. Not enough modesty and hesitation. 

Quote:[...] In my working life I dealt with many field crews and the banter between them would make a nun blush but they got along, no one was hurt, they were friends after work, and their work was impeccable. Today people murder one another for showing the slightest disrespect.

Not unusual for cliques of workers and same-group interactors to develop their own parlance, whether classically vulgar or the risk taking of recruiting shock-effects from the current taboos and sensitivities palette.

Just from the material of that era, one gathers that back in the late '60s and '70s, even different ethnic groups could exchange slurs, jokes, and insultingly prod each other in all kinds of ways as long as they knew each other (good acquaintances or friends). But if a stranger came along and tried similar...

"Passive-aggressive" (and the rest) didn't have heavy circulation or fully serious acceptance yet in the general population, generating a social paranoia of finely tuning in and micro-analyzing everyday speech and behavior. The APA finally dropped its association with a disorder in DSM IV (didn't meet scientific standards), but the general expression or concept still endures at institutional and pop-market levels.

Speech policing was definitely there in the '70s, but often in name only -- not the potency of today where Cancel Culture can ostracize and destroy personal and financial life. Plus, with respect to the Stones: certain music, art-forms and celebrity genres can still get a free pass. (Enjoy a stick-free pan or cookware set status apart from token controversy that rarely consequentially goes anywhere. They can also always use the cover of mocking a caricature -- works all the time as long as you're bad-boys with a quasi-Leftangelical reputation.)
Reply
#6
Syne Offline
(Jan 16, 2021 09:38 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2021 01:54 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Ever notice how many studies contain the words: may, might, could, should, maybe, potentially, if, possibly, perhaps, seems, believe, think, appears...

Science is tentative, though, barring an impressive tally of replications and usefulness in engineering and technology. If anything, the social-psychological disciplines in the past did grab certain research results and run with them as if they were Gospel Truth. Not enough modesty and hesitation. 

No, the results of many studies are nothing more than thinly-veiled speculation, at best. It's not about science being tentative. It's about trying bolster an agenda/bias with the authority of science, when the science doesn't actually support, and language designed to give them an out once refuted.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Don’t fall for the snake oil claims of ‘structured water’. C C 3 106 Aug 6, 2022 10:31 PM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  Even "good racism" can't base special needs on mere appearances & ethnic claims? C C 0 83 Mar 18, 2022 07:26 PM
Last Post: C C
  The problem with the pampered generations' claims of “lived experience” C C 0 96 Jul 21, 2021 09:52 PM
Last Post: C C
  New paper claims your living room causes diabetes C C 0 127 Nov 12, 2020 09:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  3rd of seniors prescribed harmful drugs + FactChecking Biden science claims on energy C C 1 170 Oct 24, 2020 10:58 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Cherry-picking approach that claims Roundup is deadly also shows it's a cancer cure C C 0 182 May 22, 2019 06:05 PM
Last Post: C C
  2014's most dubious 'science' claims C C 0 863 Dec 30, 2014 06:03 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)