4 ms·

>Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now. What? https://www.journalofinfection.com/ar

>Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now. What? https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00316-9/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003... >Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt

spookthesunset 5y ago
So explain why every single population adjusted chart of almost any metric out there looks identical to all the others. You'd be hard pressed to tell which graph is Florida and which is California. If the only way you can possibly prove lockdowns work is some kind of meta study using fancy statistics and math in order to show any difference, it probably means even if it did work it wasn't worth the cost to society. If lockdowns were effective and worth the social cost I assert any fool off the street should be able to easily see the impact of restrictions. Thus far, that is impossible.
native_samples 5y ago
Academics have been churning out bad studies that claim lockdowns work from the start. Spend time reading them and you'll see that they aren't valid. The most famous, with over 1300 citations, starts by building a fancy model that assumes only government restrictions can end epidemics. Then it takes the output and presents it as proof that lockdowns saved 3 million lives. Meaningless but got published in Nature anyway. This particular meta-study isn't even only using published studies! "34 studies were included in the review, from which 27 have been published, one of them in a journal without peer review, and seven were preprints." This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result. You can see lockdowns don't work by just looking at the data with your own eyes. Look at the UK. Cases have been dropping for more than a week even though restrictions were mostly ended on "freedom day". Epidemiologists had been predicting a huge surge because they're all in denial about the ineffectiveness of their NPIs: their restrictions had no impact at all and they don't understand why. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/world/new-virus-cases-are-falling-in-the-uk-baffling-scientists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/world/new-virus-cases-are...
- ubercow13 5y ago
  So you disregard the Nature study because being peer reviewed does not imply quality, you disregard the non-peer-reviewed studies because they aren’t peer reviewed and therefore are low quality, and you cite an article about how ‘scientists are baffled’ at data showing lockdown might not have had an effect despite your assertion that there ample scientific studies showing that lockdowns have no effect already and that it is already ‘proven beyond doubt’. > This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result. How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    You're suggesting I'm inconsistent, but the position is internally consistent: - Looking at real world data and using some common sense is sufficient. - Peer review, studies, being published in Nature etc are not especially useful. I mentioned other studies that contradict it to show this. - Nonetheless, you're presenting such a study implicitly claiming that its institutional/peer reviewed/expert origins make it useful. This doesn't make sense though, because the study is a meta-study that includes papers that haven't been so blessed by the system. The proof I'm talking about is proof-by-data.
    - ubercow13 5y ago
      Yes I guess your position is internally consistent if you consider the doubt you were referring to to be only your own doubt.

spookthesunset 5y ago

So explain why every single population adjusted chart of almost any metric out there looks identical to all the others. You'd be hard pressed to tell which graph is Florida and which is California. If the only way you can possibly prove lockdowns work is some kind of meta study using fancy statistics and math in order to show any difference, it probably means even if it did work it wasn't worth the cost to society. If lockdowns were effective and worth the social cost I assert any fool off the street should be able to easily see the impact of restrictions. Thus far, that is impossible.

native_samples 5y ago

Academics have been churning out bad studies that claim lockdowns work from the start. Spend time reading them and you'll see that they aren't valid. The most famous, with over 1300 citations, starts by building a fancy model that assumes only government restrictions can end epidemics. Then it takes the output and presents it as proof that lockdowns saved 3 million lives. Meaningless but got published in Nature anyway. This particular meta-study isn't even only using published studies! "34 studies were included in the review, from which 27 have been published, one of them in a journal without peer review, and seven were preprints." This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result. You can see lockdowns don't work by just looking at the data with your own eyes. Look at the UK. Cases have been dropping for more than a week even though restrictions were mostly ended on "freedom day". Epidemiologists had been predicting a huge surge because they're all in denial about the ineffectiveness of their NPIs: their restrictions had no impact at all and they don't understand why. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/world/new-virus-cases-are-falling-in-the-uk-baffling-scientists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/world/new-virus-cases-are...

ubercow13 5y ago
So you disregard the Nature study because being peer reviewed does not imply quality, you disregard the non-peer-reviewed studies because they aren’t peer reviewed and therefore are low quality, and you cite an article about how ‘scientists are baffled’ at data showing lockdown might not have had an effect despite your assertion that there ample scientific studies showing that lockdowns have no effect already and that it is already ‘proven beyond doubt’. > This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result. How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.
- native_samples 5y ago
  You're suggesting I'm inconsistent, but the position is internally consistent: - Looking at real world data and using some common sense is sufficient. - Peer review, studies, being published in Nature etc are not especially useful. I mentioned other studies that contradict it to show this. - Nonetheless, you're presenting such a study implicitly claiming that its institutional/peer reviewed/expert origins make it useful. This doesn't make sense though, because the study is a meta-study that includes papers that haven't been so blessed by the system. The proof I'm talking about is proof-by-data.
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    Yes I guess your position is internally consistent if you consider the doubt you were referring to to be only your own doubt.