Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

The Data is in on Lockdowns


Recommended Posts

This should not be treated as another Covid topic and buried.  Countless lives, businesses, and careers were ended over lockdowns.  Those who opposed them were punished severely.  Why shouldn’t those that forced them on us be held responsible? 

39169C81-DE00-45AF-A696-D8E6D43BDC4A.jpeg

884213FB-7BA7-4A4E-BB76-48D52222CF6D.jpeg

C1592A01-1005-4CB8-B5A2-DB319C675CB2.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero interest in supporting lockdowns, but that is not a John Hopkins study or paper but a group of three economists interested in bashing what has happened.  Everyone should understand that as they read the headline that is a misnomer and taken out of context.  It is a title and media representation that is equally off as saying that lack of lckdowns would have killed 100+ million people.  Both filled with intentionally poor data collection to try to make a point.  Again, it is disgusting how all the lockdowns happened but the paper above is far from the gospel.

Edited by Deephaven
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

I have zero interest in supporting lockdowns, but that is not a John Hopkins study or paper but a group of three economists interested in bashing what has happened.  Everyone should understand that as they read the headline that is a misnomer and taken out of context.  It is a title and media representation that is equally off as saying that lockdowns saved 100's of million lives.  Both filled with intentionally poor data collection to try to make a point.  Again, it is disgusting how all the lockdowns happened but the paper above is far from the gospel.

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the paper and find the peer review and support from the University....or don't find it as it doesn't exist.  Just three guys writing a shock article.  Doesn't mean that they don't have some valid points but it does mean that there conclusions haven't been defended to show that they are valid based on what they are citing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

I have zero interest in supporting lockdowns, but that is not a John Hopkins study or paper but a group of three economists interested in bashing what has happened.  Everyone should understand that as they read the headline that is a misnomer and taken out of context.  It is a title and media representation that is equally off as saying that lockdowns saved 100's of million lives.  Both filled with intentionally poor data collection to try to make a point.  Again, it is disgusting how all the lockdowns happened but the paper above is far from the gospel.

How is it taken out of context?  
Where is your proof that lockdowns did anything but destroy the economy?  
The point is people were punished for any opposition to lockdowns and there is zero proof they did anything but hurt people.  Should those responsible not be held responsible?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cold War said:

How is it taken out of context?   

Title and conclusions in the article don't match and are purposefully misleading.

3 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Where is your proof that lockdowns did anything but destroy the economy?  

That is what the article should have been about, especially considering the ones writing it were economists but that isn't what the title of the article is nor what the article was meant to do.

3 minutes ago, Cold War said:

The point is people were punished for any opposition to lockdowns and there is zero proof they did anything but hurt people.  Should those responsible not be held responsible?   

Again, not at all the point in my response.  Not sure why everything is all black and white to those of you that constantly make these threads.  What I stated was:

1) I am against lockdowns

2) The article is not sponsored by John Hopkins so even the title and premise is a misnomer

3) The article was meant for shock purposes just like that of ones coming from the opposite side that claim lockdowns saved shitloads of people

Those of you that are so stuck in conspiracy land should read with the same open eyes you claim the other side needs.  Some of us look at both sides and laugh, others of you are so blinded by your own flocks you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Title and conclusions in the article don't match and are purposefully misleading.

That is what the article should have been about, especially considering the ones writing it were economists but that isn't what the title of the article is nor what the article was meant to do.

Again, not at all the point in my response.  Not sure why everything is all black and white to those of you that constantly make these threads.  What I stated was:

1) I am against lockdowns

2) The article is not sponsored by John Hopkins so even the title and premise is a misnomer

3) The article was meant for shock purposes just like that of ones coming from the opposite side that claim lockdowns saved shitloads of people

Those of you that are so stuck in conspiracy land should read with the same open eyes you claim the other side needs.  Some of us look at both sides and laugh, others of you are so blinded by your own flocks you can't.

If you have read any of my posts you would know, I am not a conspiracy person and I don’t blindly follow anyone.  You’re looking to shut down any discussion on the topic by dismissing me as a crack pot. Exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cold War said:

If you have read any of my posts you would know, I am not a conspiracy person and I don’t blindly follow anyone.  You’re looking to shut down any discussion on the topic by dismissing me as a crack pot. Exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in. 

The article is a crackpot article, had nothing to do with who posted it.  The tone in your post and your reaction to ignoring what I typed and instead focusing on the agenda is why we are where we are.  I would actually like to encourage discussion on relevant points and not conspiracy propaganda from EITHER side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deephaven said:

The article is a crackpot article, had nothing to do with who posted it.  The tone in your post and your reaction to ignoring what I typed and instead focusing on the agenda is why we are where we are.  I would actually like to encourage discussion on relevant points and not conspiracy propaganda from EITHER side.

It didn’t come from some right wing website.  It was from my local news, which is very left leaning.  They vetted it and found it to be credible to report on.  Anyone who thinks they didn’t cripple our economy would have to be a partisan fool or a crackpot. 
You keep dodging my question. We have double the amount of cases now, with no lockdowns in our state. What does that tell you?  Should there be consequences for those who damaged people lives with the lockdowns?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cold War said:

You keep dodging my question. We have double the amount of cases now, with no lockdowns in our state. What does that tell you?  Should there be consequences for those who damaged people lives with the lockdowns?  

Unrelated question to the article and because of this the foundation for your question is based on misinformation so discussing it in that context is pointless.  First the details of what exactly the ramifications were need to be cleaned up, then punishment can be discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Unrelated question to the article and because of this the foundation for your question is based on misinformation so discussing it in that context is pointless.  First the details of what exactly the ramifications were need to be cleaned up, then punishment can be discussed.

K thanks Jen 

3648A5B7-5C08-47D5-9972-D86ED80E626F.jpeg

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

I guess DeepHaven read the Snopes article.They are calling it a working paper not a study trying to discredit it.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/

Daily Wire addresses this tho. The "working paper" still makes valid points regardless, but I knew this 2 years ago.   You can Download the study at the bottom of the page in this link. And ill attach it. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/johns-hopkins-study-lockdowns-had-little-to-no-effect-on-covid-19-mortality-but-had-devastating-effects-on-society

 

A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Edited by EvilBird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
22 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Do they talk about why? Clearly the extreme lockdowns in Australia slowed things down, but at what cost. Cost outweigh the benefits, certainly now at least.

Clearly huh....lol ok. 

Well Its 62 pages long. I put the link right there for ya Mr research.   Read it yourself if you want.  I am sure they go into detail. 

I only skimmed thru . Ill probably read it later tonight. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, EvilBird said:

Clearly huh....lol ok. 

Well Its 62 pages long. I put the link right there for ya Mr research.   Read it yourself if you want.  I am sure they go into detail. 

I only skimmed thru . Ill probably read it later tonight. 

Yeah, check out their Covid cases since start of the pandemic. Spike is when they said screw it and opened up. Again, all this at what cost.

 

BC33AA92-1430-4B60-A620-71DF4C2D5EAC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 9:30 AM, Cold War said:

How is it taken out of context?  
Where is your proof that lockdowns did anything but destroy the economy?  
The point is people were punished for any opposition to lockdowns and there is zero proof they did anything but hurt people.  Should those responsible not be held responsible?   

It’s taken out of context because it complete Contradicts everything he’s pushed and supported 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 9:17 AM, Deephaven said:

I have zero interest in supporting lockdowns, but that is not a John Hopkins study or paper but a group of three economists interested in bashing what has happened.  Everyone should understand that as they read the headline that is a misnomer and taken out of context.  It is a title and media representation that is equally off as saying that lack of lckdowns would have killed 100+ million people.  Both filled with intentionally poor data collection to try to make a point.  Again, it is disgusting how all the lockdowns happened but the paper above is far from the gospel.

You’ve supported all the Covid nonsense for two years now you’re trying to claim you don’t but in the sane breath you’re ripping the story and the paper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

You’ve supported all the Covid nonsense for two years now you’re trying to claim you don’t but in the sane breath you’re ripping the story and the paper. 

I rip bullshit on both sides.  You are regularly bat shit crazy in your conclusions along with the other conspiracidiots so I call you out.  Unlike either extreme I see things with logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

I rip bullshit on both sides.  You are regularly bat shit crazy in your conclusions along with the other conspiracidiots so I call you out.  Unlike either extreme I see things with logic.

You’ve supported all this Covid nonsense. Many of us have said from day one that all of this was BS and you called us conspiracy theorists 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

That's litterly like the 10th report to slam lockdown measures as not only draconianian, but beyond useless.

But it's not (circle-jerk) peer reviewed.  :lol:

DeepCunt can’t backtrack now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...