Another Study Shows—Yet Again—That Lockdowns Don’t Work

1st place, no one’s scientifically identified a new virus.

2nd place, the seasonal flu supposedly  took the year off because of “COVID-19” which has STILL not been  scientifically proved to exist despite the lies of MSM red Russian Rat’s whores and prostituted politicians.

3ed, use common sense like you have every damn flu season.

Now, if you ignore there has been no virus scientifically identified and “COVID-19”, scientifically isolated, scientifically reproduced, whatever seasonal flu bug is going around is not a killer unless you are sick already with underlying medical problems.

in other words, this years seasonal flue is about like most all seasonal flus.

The Ratschilds were denied by higher powers  the red Russian Mongrel Rats long planned and lusted for world War 3 which the Rats were planning on using to forced humankind to accept their nightmare of a Rat Run one world red Russian Communist dictatorship for the whole world.

So the Rats punted the football.

The  red Russian Rats are trying to use a mild by comparison seasonal flu backed by a massive lie campaign to scare humanity into excepting the evil of a Rat run one world dictatorship with  all humanity slaves to red Russian Khazarian Rats.

The Ole Dog!

————————————————-

‘Another Study Shows—Yet Again—That Lockdowns Don’t Work’

Although advocates for covid-19 lockdowns continue to insist that they save lives, actual experience keeps suggesting otherwise.

On a national level, just eyeballing the data makes this clear. Countries that have implemented harsh lockdowns shouldn’t expect to have comparatively lower numbers of covid-19 deaths per million.

In Italy and the United Kingdom, for example, where lockdowns have been repeatedly imposed, death totals per million remain among the worst in the world. Meanwhile, in the United States, states with with the most harsh lockdown rules—such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are among the states with the worst total deaths.

Lockdown advocates, of course, are likely to argue that if researchers control for a variety of other variables, then we’re sure to see that lockdowns have saved millions of lives. Yet research keeps showing us this simply isn’t the case.

The latest study to show the weakness of the pro-lockdown position appeared this month in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, authored by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, and John P.A. Ioannidis. Titled “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19,” the authors compare “more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions” (mrNPI) and “less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions” (lrNPI). More restrictive interventions include mandatory stay-at-home orders and forced business closures. Less restrictive measures include “social distancing guidelines, discouraging of international and domestic travel, and a ban on large gatherings.” The researchers compare outcomes at the subnational level in a number of countries, including England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. This is then compared against countries with less restrictive measures, primarily Sweden and South Korea, where stay-at-home orders and business closures were not widely implemented.

The conclusion:

We find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country….In none of the 8 countries and in none out of the 16 comparisons (against Sweden or South Korea) were the effects of mrNPIs significantly negative (beneficial). The point estimates were positive (point in the direction of mrNPIs resulting in increased daily growth in cases).

That is, the more restrictive lockdown measures pointed to worse outcomes.

This data suggests that the theoretical underpinnings of the lockdown philosophy are wrong. As summed up by Bendavid et al.,

The conceptual model underlying this approach is that, prior to meaningful population immunity, individual behavior is the primary driver of reductions in transmission rate, and that any NPI may provide a nudge towards individual behavior change, with response rates that vary between individuals and over time. lrNPIs could have large anti-contagion effects if individual behavioral response is large, in which case additional, more restrictive NPIs may not provide much additional benefit. On the other hand, if lrNPIs provide relatively small nudges to individual behavior, then mrNPIs may result in large behavioral effects at the margin, and large reductions in the growth of new cases.

Translation: mild measures encouraging caution on exposure to others probably lessen the spread. Therefore, more stringent measures will surely do an even better job of limiting the spread!

MORE:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/another-study-shows-yet-again-lockdowns-dont-work

Author: John C Carleton

Native Texican, American by Birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 256 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded.