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
230 visitors
I guess The Johns Hopkins University is only worth anything when it fits an agenda.
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.
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!
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.
You're correct. Zucker, Cuomo, Mika, Scarborough, Maddow et al have reaped those dirty benefits from their networks!
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.
If the downward trend continues yes it is and especially for hospital staff. As for anti-vax truckers, let them eat roadkill.
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
I would need to an adherent of a faith to do that.
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.
Well said. The pandemic is (sickeningly) a political football.
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.
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.