Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All Skeptics are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the enlightened ones hath declared a science. A
study in applied economics, brought to us by the Trumpian cultists at Johns Hopkins University, a bastion of far-right conspiratorial thought, investigating the effects of lockdowns on COVID mortality.
But before we dig in, I just need to say that no matter what the Trumpists at Hopkins have to say, I know that I'm far better off now paying 5 dollars a gallon for gas and having to fight my neighbors like a
Venezuelan tourist for toilet paper than I was two years ago before our glorious leaders intervened to save us from ourselves, and so is
Jeff Bezos.
This paper introduces us to a Newspeak term I was unfamiliar with, but have since quickly adopted, called Compulsory Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs), commonly known as “lockdowns." The term "lockdowns" leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, reminiscent of Soviet gulags and Nazi Jewish ghettos, so we shall use the term NPI hence forth to avoid any bias in our analysis.
The academics at the Imperial College London, from their ivory towers, decreed early on that
NPIs would reduce COVID-19 mortality by up to 98%, despite the fact that there was no clear negative correlation between the degree of lockdown and fatalities in the spring of 2020. This glaring discrepancy is but one of many reasons why our intrepid researchers at Hopkins decided to look deeper into the effectiveness of NPIs.
After furious digging through mountains of useless hyperbole, our heroes were able to discern 34 empirical studies that estimated the effect of NPIs on mortality. They have thusly presented those results in such a way that they can be systematically assessed, replicated, and used to derive an overall meta-conclusion as to how many plebeians were saved by our glorious leaders shutting down the global economy.
Ultimately, after many pages of deep reflective thought, our researchers conclude:
"Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality."
Well, at least they managed to save 3% of coof victims from an early death. Unfortunately, the paper didn't bother to go into things like
increased suicide rates, the highest year on year rise in
alcohol consumption in 20 years, a
34% increase in divorce rates,
16% increase in domestic violence rates, and the impact the fear generated by lockdowns may have had on patients delaying care for things like cancer because they were
too terrified to go to the hospital.
But never mind any of that!
When Dear Leader Cuomo
forced nursing homes to accept COVID positive patients while shutting down all small businesses in America's largest city, we now know that he actually saved 1,900 people by doing so!
When the Glorious Leaders of California, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Mexico provided
huge financial incentives to nursing homes to accept COVID positive patients, while simultaneously shutting down all small businesses in their states, not only did they increase the wealth of Jeff Bezos (who most assuredly knows how to spend that money better than you do), but they also saved a collective 4,194 people by doing so!
I don't see how we can look at this paper as anything other than a win for policy makers across all the above mentioned states. I don't think this is a conspiracy, but it seems that this is the only thread where the benefits of such great science can be discussed.
just in case? Yeah, these days' I'd better.
