4 ms·

There is no single scientific evidence that lockdowns save lives. Instead, they increase: educational gaps domestic abuse unemployment alcohol & drug abuse

There is no single scientific evidence that lockdowns save lives. Instead, they increase: educational gaps domestic abuse unemployment alcohol & drug abuse suicides & self-harm depression & anxiety cardiac & cancer deaths

stevehawk 4y ago
actually that 'domestic abuse' one may be false. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/did-domestic-violence-really-spike-during-the-pandemic/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/did-domestic-violence-reall...
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Also worth noting that incidences of other infectious disease also went down, which has to be included in the math here.
pyronite 4y ago
> There is no single scientific evidence that lockdowns save lives. I'm all for science, but are you implying China's strict COVID lockdown strategy didn't save any lives?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Of course it extended some specific lives. It also shortened others. The question is what the net effect was and I don’t think we’ll ever have reliable data on the net effect of the lockdowns in China.
  - pc86 4y ago
    You say that as if the only measure of a government is the net number of lives saved at the end of that government. I would argue that's largely irrelevant. Whether extremely strict lockdowns like those seen in China and Singapore save lives or not is completely irrelevant as they are wrong, at the most basic level. Whether other countries went too far or didn't go far enough can be debated, but having police lock people inside their own homes isn't really something you can argue that good government does.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Yes, that's an impressive list, and useless without quantitative data, and comparisons to the effects of not locking down soon enough, which got pretty gnarly in places like Italy early on, for instance And bullshit there's no evidence. You're clearly just not interested in considering it. Which is why you make hyperbolic statements like "there is no single scientific evidence". Give me break.
- fderwgtjrsewa 4y ago
  >useless without quantitative data Here's some. It's a report commissioned by the government where I live, on the school attendance rates post-Covid. Even allowing for direct Covid-related absences, attendance rates continue to fall. Take a look at Table 3 in the report - attendance among disadvantaged groups has dropped in the medium double digit range. The spell of universal school attendance has been broken. Many kids and families will be permanently left behind - this lines up with what teacher friends have told me. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/attendance-review-implications-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-school-attendance.pdf https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/a...
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Thank you for being constructive. This is a very sad effect indeed. I'm not sure it could be seen as intrinsic to lockdown though, but could be more of an issue with the implementation of it. Closing schools and online teaching was a a controversial topic in the discourse here in Norway. This study[1] from Norway surveyed teachers about the attendance of students with pre-existing School Attendance Problems(SAP) during online homeschooling: >Teachers rated their experiences of their students’ participation in homeschooling compared to regular school attendance. The findings indicate that teachers very slightly perceived better/much better participation during homeschooling (35 percent) than worse/much worse participation (31 percent) (Table 5). There were no significant gender differences; however, teachers reported that more boys than girls participated better/much better during homeschooling (42 percent boys and 27 percent girls). So in this case there was a slight overall improvement, it seems. [0]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.720014/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.7200...
JohnBooty 4y ago
There is no single scientific evidence What a strawman! Nobody is saying otherwise. It's going to take decades, if not longer, for many of these effects to play out. Both the positive and negative ones. The most optimistic take I saw here was somebody wondering -- certainly not claiming, but wondering -- if the positive benefits such as pollution might outweigh the negative effects in the long run.
CalRobert 4y ago
If we're not going to worry about citing sources I might as well note that they seemed to reduce school shootings.

stevehawk 4y ago

actually that 'domestic abuse' one may be false. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/did-domestic-violence-really-spike-during-the-pandemic/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/did-domestic-violence-reall...

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Also worth noting that incidences of other infectious disease also went down, which has to be included in the math here.

pyronite 4y ago

> There is no single scientific evidence that lockdowns save lives. I'm all for science, but are you implying China's strict COVID lockdown strategy didn't save any lives?

sokoloff 4y ago
Of course it extended some specific lives. It also shortened others. The question is what the net effect was and I don’t think we’ll ever have reliable data on the net effect of the lockdowns in China.
- pc86 4y ago
  You say that as if the only measure of a government is the net number of lives saved at the end of that government. I would argue that's largely irrelevant. Whether extremely strict lockdowns like those seen in China and Singapore save lives or not is completely irrelevant as they are wrong, at the most basic level. Whether other countries went too far or didn't go far enough can be debated, but having police lock people inside their own homes isn't really something you can argue that good government does.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Yes, that's an impressive list, and useless without quantitative data, and comparisons to the effects of not locking down soon enough, which got pretty gnarly in places like Italy early on, for instance And bullshit there's no evidence. You're clearly just not interested in considering it. Which is why you make hyperbolic statements like "there is no single scientific evidence". Give me break.

fderwgtjrsewa 4y ago
>useless without quantitative data Here's some. It's a report commissioned by the government where I live, on the school attendance rates post-Covid. Even allowing for direct Covid-related absences, attendance rates continue to fall. Take a look at Table 3 in the report - attendance among disadvantaged groups has dropped in the medium double digit range. The spell of universal school attendance has been broken. Many kids and families will be permanently left behind - this lines up with what teacher friends have told me. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/attendance-review-implications-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-school-attendance.pdf https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/a...
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Thank you for being constructive. This is a very sad effect indeed. I'm not sure it could be seen as intrinsic to lockdown though, but could be more of an issue with the implementation of it. Closing schools and online teaching was a a controversial topic in the discourse here in Norway. This study[1] from Norway surveyed teachers about the attendance of students with pre-existing School Attendance Problems(SAP) during online homeschooling: >Teachers rated their experiences of their students’ participation in homeschooling compared to regular school attendance. The findings indicate that teachers very slightly perceived better/much better participation during homeschooling (35 percent) than worse/much worse participation (31 percent) (Table 5). There were no significant gender differences; however, teachers reported that more boys than girls participated better/much better during homeschooling (42 percent boys and 27 percent girls). So in this case there was a slight overall improvement, it seems. [0]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.720014/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.7200...

JohnBooty 4y ago

There is no single scientific evidence What a strawman! Nobody is saying otherwise. It's going to take decades, if not longer, for many of these effects to play out. Both the positive and negative ones. The most optimistic take I saw here was somebody wondering -- certainly not claiming, but wondering -- if the positive benefits such as pollution might outweigh the negative effects in the long run.

CalRobert 4y ago

If we're not going to worry about citing sources I might as well note that they seemed to reduce school shootings.