CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
By: Joseph A. Wulfsohn
See more Branco toons 
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
ABC, CBS, NBC also ignored the anti-lockdown study
There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.
According to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.
"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 researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."
However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."
It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.
Time Square deserted during lockdown (Ian Jopson)
The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.
"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote .
The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.
Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%.
The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.
"[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote.
"But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places."
Close-up of sign for The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. (iStock)
The researchers also examined studies that focused on specific lockdown measures and found that the only intervention that reduced COVID-19 mortality was the closure of non-essential businesses, which reduced mortality by 10.6%, but this effect was likely driven by the closure of bars.
Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses.
From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths , a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data.
A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued.
Experts advise caution when touching potentially contaminated surfaces. Ensure appropriate levels of hand hygiene to minimize risk of virus transmission, doctors say. (iStock)
About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year.
The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020.
"These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."
Fox News' Paul Best contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
YOU NEED TO CHECK OUT THE ACTUAL TRUTH PROVIDED BY HALLUX IN HIS ARTICLE.
Scientists Criticize Flaws In Study That Found Lockdowns Do Little To Reduce COVID Deaths
Category: News & Politics
Via: hallux • 5 minutes ago • 2 commentsI guess The Johns Hopkins University is only worth anything when it fits an agenda.
The agenda of control through fear and if that didn’t work guilt shaming and taking away rights, freedom, and liberty from the working and middle class as well as Main Street small businesses.
That's exactly what it is. It is so much easier to control a crowd that is ignorant and in fear than an informed crowd.
It still baffles the mind how many still buy into much of the fear mongering despite the contrary.
Where is the data from Johns Hopkins University?
All I see here is something from Fux 'news'
Don't you have to provide a source for the data????????????????????????????????????????????????
Open the links in the article. The information is there.
This was clearly linked in the seeded article.
See it's not truthful - the data was analyzed by three economists and they came up with that bullshit.
"Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school."
But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.
That is per Hallux's TRUTHFUL ARTICLE.
But they're not affiliated with JHU so it's misleading if not an outright lie to say this study was FROM JHU. It was a cherry picked economic analysis of the study BY JHU
It was buried among all the stupid ass memes and bullshit that XX usually litters his 'articles' with. MY MISTAKE
The stuff in the my comment section was separate from the seeded article content and is no excuse to not read the actual article.
The links were embedded in the seeded article and have been independently posted by some commenters, Tessy.
Your 'article' is bogus in the first place - I take back the MY MISTAKE remark I made.
Hallux has the truthful article.
"Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university’s world-renowned medical school."
But the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university’s unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences"
That is per Hallux's TRUTHFUL ARTICLE.
See 3.4.4
No. The embedded links in that Vancouver Sun article are from 2020 articles.
What the author, Tristin Hopper, and others clearly didn't understand was that the Johns Hopkins study is an evaluation of the economical and social harm caused by lockdowns and mandates. Page 3 states:
Thank you..................now here will come the nuh uh crowd.
You've very welcome. The Vancouver Sun's author even tried to malign Dr. Marty Makary, who played a role in this study. Makary has been one of the most temperate, fact-based medical professionals throughout the pandemic. He is pro-vaccine/booster for vulnerable people, but he doesn't believe in fear-mongering, indefinite school lock downs and masking, and flip-flopping ala Fauci/CDC/teacher unions.
Makary also believes that Americans have a right to make their own medical decisions, preferably in consultation with their chosen, trusted medical providers and not be forced to accept government bureaucratic mandates that aren't supported by medical, scientific data. Imagine that!
I can do that because he is right!
What a bunch of bogus nonsense
You are wrong. Dr. Makary is right.
That article said absolutely nothing to debunk a single fact in my seeded article. It was nothing more than an attack upon the source of my articles content.
If the left wing nut cases can't attack the source they just ignore the study altogether or say it doesn't exist when it is pointed out to them. Ignoring reality is an art form for them.. It is pretty amusing but sad.
[deleted]
That’s what the biased lamestream news sources are doing. Ignoring the new reality and hoping to make it go away.
I agree completely. You said it very well. Bravo! 👏
I'm not surprised that left-wing media have completely ignored this, because it doesn't fit the Fauci/CDC/Biden/Democrat governors' outrageous control mechanisms of get vaxed or get fired, wear a paper or cloth mask at all times, etc.
.
I'm not surprised that Tucker jumped all over it, he's been having a bad week.
How so? Perhaps you meant Zucker, because he definitely had a bad week!
Actually this and my other seed today are hard news articles and Carlson had nothing to do with this though he will likely talk about it tonight.
Inquiring minds want to know! He’s actually had a great week by all objective standards
All on FNC had a great week ... in fact, a great 20 years!
Tucker already talked about it in his interview with Martin Makary and we know that you watch Tucker religiously.
Lies and mis-information and propaganda and lies and mis-information and propaganda APPEARS TO PAY VERY WELL.
MSNBC and CNN hosts know that very well from their vast experience in all that you mention.
Did you watch Hannity and his interview of the great Dr. Malone?
You're correct. Zucker, Cuomo, Mika, Scarborough, Maddow et al have reaped those dirty benefits from their networks!
You know I'm talking about Fux 'news' - fair and balanced my ass.
I only watch Hannity when I'm constipated and in need of a vicarious laxative.
That wasn't stated in comment 5.1.6 . The most well-documented purveyors of lies, mis/dis-information are CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, and ABC.
How does he propose that that be done?
WTF are you talking about?
Exactly. Questionable and propaganda all.
Well Alberta and Saskatchewan are beginning to undo all of their mandates now as of today. Great news.
If the downward trend continues yes it is and especially for hospital staff. As for anti-vax truckers, let them eat roadkill.
Then why did Nova Scotia try to ban its citizens from gathering to show support for the truckers and farmers anti mandates protest on their way to Ottawa?
They are NOT anti-vaccine. They are anti-MANDATES. Big difference!
They are both.
Ohhhhh ... OK, if you say so! But, all of the Canadian truckers' interviews I've seen show them stating that they are NOT anti-vaccinations but anti-MANDATES (mask, vax, other restrictions).
Anti mandates is not a problem. Protesting same is not a problem. It is everyone's right to do so.
The problem is when people (who are medically suited for the vaccine) refuse to be vaccinated.
Too many people do not separate the freedom & liberty principle from prudent, responsible actions for their own health and that of the nation.
In short, protest all you† want, but do so while vaccinated and encourage others to do likewise.
† - you is not Jasper but rather a general reference
It will be interesting to see how Time Warner tries to remodel that fake news outlet.
We in red states and red counties in blue states have already done so.
He was naming media known to be purveyors of propaganda and thus totally of questionable value.
That’s so true and the anti vaccine blood libel against vaccinated people opposed to mandates is irrational.
How do you explain me then? I’m vaccinated. I’ve always been careful to reasonably social distance as much as possible and to wash hands regularly and yet I’m opposed to all mandates.
Exactly. About 85% of those truckers are vaccinated and yet they are in Ottawa demanding an end to all pandemic originating mandates.
I would need to an adherent of a faith to do that.
It’s all about control for the side you refer to. They colluded with China after China released the China virus world wide to blame Trump instead and use it to gain political power and control.
What's this whack job conspiracy theory XX????????
That's a new one. Where the he'll did you hear that crackpot nonsense?
Nothing new about it. It’s the truth.
It’s been around since the spring of 2020.
I would guess the main reason it’s not being widely reported is that it doesn’t appear to have been peer-reviewed yet.
Those experts who have looked at the meta study have found a number of flaws, not the least of which is the loose definition of “lockdown.” The meta study appears to label even one restrictive measure as constituting a lockdown - an approach that defies both the dictionary definition and common conception of the word.
If you think about it, it has become very popular over the last few years for political commentators to label almost anything a “lockdown,” but virtually every situation you might find in the United States has fallen well short of truly locking everything down.
All you have to do is look at how people refuse to wear masks, or wear them uselessly on their chins, or refuse to be vaccinated, or gather when they aren’t supposed to, and you realize that simply creating a restrictive government regulation does not amount to a lockdown.
I have this fantasy where my fellow Americans take the crisis seriously and do everything they can in good faith to fight the pandemic. Instead, we have seen two years of bitching, moaning, and whining. So, no surprise then, that we are one of the world’s leaders in cases and deaths.
See 3.4.7
That comment doesn't make the seed any less intentionally misleading.
BINGO!
It is Biden and Fauci who have been intentionally misleading…
Are those networks covering the JHU study results or are they not?
Well said. The pandemic is (sickeningly) a political football.
The article shows that it was all for virtually nothing. After the first 45 days to stop the spread mistake was over, we should have returned to normal with washing hands and social distancing modifications.
That's not true in any way, shape or form.
Tacos is exactly right on everything here.
Put into play by the Democrats
Confirmation bias ... what a surprise:
That is not what I am seeing. I continue to see Rs whining, bitching and refusing to deal with reality concerning the pandemic. The unvaccinated are predominantly on the R side. The Rs seem to translate every attempt to encourage prudent practices as a statist power play. The level of stubborn stupidity (e.g. refusing to get vaccinated on 'principle') even when high visibility anti-vaxxers die from COVID, is staggering.
So if you are compelled to see the world as strictly D or R, the Ds strike me as substantially more responsible in this pandemic.
Exactly! It’s been their control tool from day one.
JHU says otherwise
That fantasy relies on people agreeing upon what constitutes "good faith". That's a function of how scared people are (or not) and to what extent they feel entitled to tell other people what to do based on that fear.
I'm going to suggest "quarterbacking your favorite team to a Super Bowl victory" has a higher probability, as fantasies go.