Johns Hopkins Study: Lockdowns Had No Effect

- THINK AMERICANA - Keely Sharp - APR 16, 2022 -

According to a new study by Johns Hopkins University, the pandemic “lockdowns have had little to no public health effects,” and have “imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”



“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 authors of the study reported.


They added, “In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."


Wow, you mean the "conspiracy theorists" were right?? No wonder social media giants, the media, and the government worked so hard to keep them quiet.


Breitbart reports:


The authors are Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark; Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden; and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.


The study, the authors said, was “designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that ‘lockdowns’ reduce COVID-19 mortality.” The authors defined lockdowns “as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).”


NPIs, they explained, “are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.”


The authors explained that “public health experts and politicians” have “embraced compulsory lockdowns” to address the coronavirus pandemic, and their study was to answer the question of other or not that has done more harm than good.


“To answer our question, we focused on studies that examine the actual impact of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality rates based on registered cross-sectional mortality data and a counterfactual difference in-difference approach,” the authors said.


Herby, Jonung, and Hanke further illustrated:


This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.


LEIA MAIS >

8 views0 comments