A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death rates by up to 98%.
They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars.”
The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.
I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most protective course. However, we could have taken that course without actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these measures.
OT
“HUGE: Durham Investigation of Obamagate Expands”
Special Counsel John Durham is not yet finished with his investigation into the Obamagate scandal, and a new report says his efforts have expanded.
According to recent court filings, Durham has gained access to a significant amount of FBI internal affairs files in his effort to uncover the Obama administration’s maneuvers to promote bogus allegations against Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Team Obama’s disingenuous investigation of the anti-Trump allegations, called Crossfire Hurricane, relied on the discredited Christopher Steele dossier, which was paid for by party activists. The Washington Times reports that “Three times in his 19-page submission Mr. Durham tells the judge that his team is conducting an ‘active, ongoing criminal investigation’ not limited to the defendant, former Hillary Clinton campaign legal adviser Michael A. Sussmann.”
Related: Hmm … Is Durham Planning to Charge Team Hillary?
Durham was appointed as special counsel in December 2020 in order to protect the investigation, which began while he was a U.S. Attorney, from being quashed by the Biden administration. Joe Biden promptly fired all Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys in his first weeks in office. This is obviously not good news for Joe Biden, who has been implicated in the scandal. During his confirmation hearings, U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland refused to commit to protecting the Durham investigation. Durham reportedly now has access to over 130,000 pages of new material, with 492,000 pages more expected. It is a lot harder for a president to fire a special counsel than a U.S. attorney. It will be interesting to see if Biden and Garland attempt to obstruct the investigation going forward.
– Matt Margolis
____________
“Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”
By [John “Dudley-Will-He-Do-Right” Durham]
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin et al.
The Washington Times is not a reliable source for anything. And, the Mueller investigation was not instigated by the Steele Dossier. Yes, we all know that the “Durham investigation” is supposed to serve as a distraction to offset the daily news about all of the serious crimes committed by Trump. The latest scandal is that Trump tried to get the DOJ and even state police in various swing states to confiscate voting equipment, based on the Big Lie. Trump was directly involved.
And, please, it is an immorality for a delusional pig like you to co-opt Robert Frost’s beautiful poem.
Mueller investigation was not instigated by the Steele Dossier
I’ll give you a heads up. The information and timelines are all public record
What exactly did start the Mueller investigation?
Wow. After all this time, you still don’t know?
The Crossfire Hurricane investigation started as follows: On May 6, George Papadopoulos had drinks with Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to Britain in a London bar, and Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Clinton emails. Then Wikileaks released hacked emails on July 22, and the Australian Government contacted the US government to let us know about Papadopoulos’s statement.
However, that wasn’t the start of the Mueller investigation. Mueller was appointed because Trump fired Comey when Comey refused to drop the investigation into Flynn (which arose out of Crossfire Hurricane).
Neither of these originated with the Steele Dossier.
Special counsel legislation requires a crime to investigate.
The scope memo never mentions a crime.
The FBI never engaged in a criminal investigation.
Papadopolis? Exactly what about his conversation launches a special counsel The Clinton Email information was planted with Popadopolis by Mifsud and Halper. Two spies run by MI6 at the behest of the CIA, and reporting to the FBI as paid human resources. Notice all of this took place off of US soil, allowing the CIA to be involved. CIA is almost synonymous with the The State Dept. Not strange at all that your claim of a source event is made possible by the State Dept and CIA, all working off US soil. The only reason Popadopolis was in London was due to Halper paying him to write and present a paper. All to get him on foreign soil
But we are still waiting for a crime to support the appointment of the Special Counsel
Again: Natacha’s statement that “Mueller investigation was not instigated by the Steele Dossier” is true.
As is your wont, you will avoid admitting that you were wrong.
As is your wont, you now try to move the goalposts.
As is also your wont, you introduce a new false claim, “The scope memo never mentions a crime.”
Here’s the appointment letter in full:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
See the part that says “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”?
That’s where Rosenstein “mentions a crime”: links and/or coordination between a foreign government and a campaign can be a crime under several statutes, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and laws against fraud, corruption, and coercion in federal elections.
“Exactly what about his conversation launches a special counsel ”
Thank you for again demonstrating your poor reading skills. Crossfire Hurricane is not the Special Counsel Investigation.
Anonymous/Natacha: You give yourself away by reading other posters’ comments that are more poignant than yours, then adopting/incorporating some of their words/phrases/language/tactics into your own comments. Very amusing. Thanks anyway. Yours truly, lin.
“As is your wont, you will avoid admitting that you were wrong.”
ATS, you have been wrong on almost every major item discussed on this blog. How you can stand being so wrong and call another wrong is an affront to any intelligence you might have once had. All your statements here are half truths. Half truths are intentional lies.
In fact, The National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex, was convened as a distraction from the Special Counsel, John Durham, Investigation Into Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns.
Dont tell the Democrats that Americans have no faith in them. At this rate they wouldnt even win an election for Chief of Sanitation!
Keep doing what youre doing….please!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389309/americans-offer-gloomy-state-nation-report.aspx
Americans Offer Gloomy State of the Nation Report
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ satisfaction with a variety of aspects of U.S. society and the state of policy in key issue areas remains subdued in 2022 after falling in 2021. In fact, in only one area — acceptance of gays and lesbians — are more Americans satisfied now than were in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Over the past year, there have been further meaningful declines in 10 areas, most notably in satisfaction with energy policy, the nation’s military strength, the state of the economy, and abortion policy.
The latest results are from Gallup’s annual Mood of the Nation survey, which was conducted Jan. 3-16. This year, Gallup asked Americans to indicate how satisfied they are with eight aspects of the U.S., including the quality of life, opportunity and the governmental system. Additionally, the survey gauged Americans’ satisfaction with the state of the nation in 21 different policy areas. These trend questions were first asked in 2001 and have been updated in most years since then
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
Government has no “emergency powers” provided by the Constitution and no authority to impose “lockdowns.”
The Framers were fully aware of and adversely affected by epidemics, specifically that of smallpox which Washington described in 1777 as a potentially greater threat “than…the Sword of the Enemy.”
Americans retain the freedom of mobility and every other conceivable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the 9th Amendment.
Government has no constitutional authority to compel citizens to remain in their domicile or to quarantine citizens.
Government may suspend habeas corpus upon invasion or rebellion (not secession which is fully constitutional).
Government may arrest citizens upon probable cause.
The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance, distinctly not dictatorship, enslavement, and governmental “care” and provision.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Jonathan Turley writes dangerous garbage. For example, one readily finds than even those experts critical of masks state “any mask is better than no mask”. Obviously a well-designed mask is better than a poor one.
This isn’t a first amendment “free speech” issue as there is nothing here about congress attempting to suppress. What there is? An attempt to keep discourse as rational as may be and keep the stupid alive by not drinking Lysol, etc.
Jonathan Turley isn’t helping here. He should stick to what he knows, not contracting his own form of what I have taken up calling LinusPaulingitis.
CNN is hiring. Send your video interview to them while massaging yourself on Zoom. Youll be hired on the spot
😂😂😂😂😂
https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/cnns-jeff-zucker-resigns-over-romantic-relationship-with-colleague/
CNN President Jeff Zucker resigns over romantic relationship with Allison Gollust
CNN’s top boss Jeff Zucker resigned from the network Wednesday after he didn’t disclose a romantic relationship with another senior executive at the company.
Zucker, who has helmed the cable network for nine years, told colleagues in a memo that his relationship with CNN’s Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer Allison Gollust came up during a probe into Chris Cuomo’s alleged sexual misconduct.
“As part of the investigation into Chris Cuomo’s tenure at CNN, I was asked about a consensual relationship with my closest colleague, someone I have worked with for more than 20 years,” Zucker wrote in the memo, shared on Twitter by CNN’s Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter
What happened, O’Keef/Veritas catch another diddling very young kids again & his bosses are trying to hiding saying he was with a grown women?
“Jeff Zucker resigns over romantic relationship with Allison Gollust”
Which , of course, is BS. That relationship has been widely known for years.
How do you think Turley would address my questions concerning Trump’s disinfectant harmful disinformation? After all, it could prove to be true in the fullness of time!
It’s very convenient that he refuses to take questions challenging his views.
“…a chain-link fence to stop mosquitos…”
“The virus that causes COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer in diameter. (A micrometer (µm) is one one-thousandth of a millimeter.) The holes in woven cloth are visible to the naked eye and may be five to 200 micrometers in diameter. It is counter-intuitive that cloth can be useful in this setting — it’s been compared to putting up a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes. However, that analogy is wrong in many ways.”
– The Conversation.com
For example, one readily finds than even those experts critical of masks state “any mask is better than no mask”
Nice try. As Turley so aptly exhibits, “experts” got lockdowns wrong. Now you believe that any mask is better than no mask…because “experts”. You need to provide some bit of evidence.
A mask mandate is not a lockdown, no matter what bizarre definition the authors want to use.
I couldn’t agree more. Tell me, you mask deniers, if you have to have surgery performed, would it be OK with you if the surgeon, OR nurses, techs and anesthesiologists did NOT wear masks? Why do you think they wear masks if masks don’t do anything to prevent infection? Back at the turn of the twentieth century, doctors performing surgery didn’t wear either masks or gloves, and infections were rampant. Dr. Halstead, who invented the radical mastectomy to treat breast cancer, also invented rubber surgical gloves.
“Why do you think they wear masks if masks don’t do anything to prevent infection?”
Why? Let me guess, it’s a trick question, like dogs some people can’t keep from Drooling & they can’t read & Understand the directions on the back of the box masks that say point blank their mask do not protect protect from Covid/ETC..
BTW: Do You Think, Just For a Moment, Just Maybe it’d be far better to find out & stop whats Causing the Cancers/Breast Cancer then cutting off all those women’s beautiful breast???
Worst Health Care & Most Expensive here in the US then anywhere in this Solar System, Jesus!!!
They wear masks to prevent bacterial transmission, not viral. Bacteria are thousands of times larger than a virus. No competent surgeon would ever use a mask to prevent transmission if knowingly infected with a virus. This is microbiology 101.
The wearing of masks from the very beginning of this has been not only counterproductive, but outright dangerous as it has promoted a false sense of security and protection and encouraged people to congregate in ways they never should have. It was meaningless theater that probably has resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
“It was meaningless theater . . .”
Only it was not “meaningless.” It has a deadly meaning: Obey. Submit. Wipe out your personal identity.
David, what happens if the mask becomes a vector of the disease you are trying to fight?
No surprises: BLM is a grifter, thugs-r-us violent organization, just like the Democrats that birthed them
https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/black-lives-matter-warned-by-california-ag-over-finances/
Black Lives Matter labeled ‘delinquent’ by California AG over murky finances
California’s Department of Justice is pursuing Black Lives Matter over its murky $60 million coffers — warning the group’s shadowy leadership that it will be “personally liable” for any fees or fines.
The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a formal warning to the controversial activist group on Monday, according to a letter shared by the Washington Examiner.
“The organization BLACK LIVES MATTER GLOBAL NETWORK FOUNDATION, INC. is delinquent with The Registry of Charitable Trusts for failing to submit required annual report(s),” the letter stated.
“An organization that is delinquent, suspended or revoked is not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds.”
BLM was given 60 days to file tax and charity documents for 2020 — the year it previously confirmed collecting a staggering $90 million, with at least $60 million left over after expenses and grants.
Co-founders Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi had already stepped away from the group when Cullors also quit amid outrage over her finances.
Then the two activists who were supposed to take over, Makani Themba and Monifa Bandele, never took up the roles because of disagreements with the “acting Leadership Council,” the Examiner reported last week.
That left Shalomyah Bowers and Raymond Howard as the board members seemingly in charge, the conservative outlet said.
Howard was listed as the operations director, while Bowers was the deputy executive director with fiscal responsibility, according to online records from August.
Neither returned messages from The Post early Wednesday, and the Examiner said the duo also ignored numerous messages asking who was in control of the group and its millions of dollars.
The outlet also said both apparent leaders had removed online posts linking them to the activist group.
Turley stated on April 24, 2020:
“The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus. The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies. Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products. While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy. We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners. Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree. Ultimately, this is not about politics. This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/04/24/foreseeable-misuse-trumps-suggestion-of-possible-use-of-disinfectant-in-the-blood-triggers-industry-warnings/
Turley demanded that the White House disavow Trump’s statement. Indeed, the White House did put out a statement, as Turley noted:
“Update: The White House comments falls considerably short of a clarification. The White House Press Secretary stated: “President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing. Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”
“I have often criticized the media for unfair coverage but this was not taking a comment out of context. Moreover, it did not appear to be either a comment made to the media or a comment made in sarcasm, as later claimed by the President. It was an ill-conceived and potentially dangerous comment that could have been addressed with a simple clarifying statement last night.”
—————
In other words, the White House was lying.
THE questions for Turley:
1. Since it is an article of faith that good speech invariably will inoculate bad speech, is it impermissible for a network to continue to censor Trump’s musings?
2. Will Turley defend the freedom of speech of a network to begin re-broadcasting Trump’s harmful disinformation?
3. Would Turley not be opposed to those who seek to ban Trump’s disinfectant statement even if it is harmful and argue that they should instead resign themselves to persuading his followers that he is an idiot and should not be heeded.
It is nice to see a study, and there have been others prior to this one suggesting the same thing using different criteria.
At the same time, I think most of us figured this out ourselves using our own research, analysis and making our own conclusions.
“[M]ost of us figured this out ourselves using our own research, analysis and making our own conclusions.”
You’re not allowed to do that. Lord Fauci decrees it. You accept it. That settles it. (Or perhaps you prefer being disappeared.)
Upstate,
Yes we did figure it out and some of us posted here. I mentioned being in LA early December before last when Newsom tightened the restrictions significantly. Almost immediately when figures were posted the case and death rates soared in California.
The lockdown actually seemed to increase spread of the infection.
Of course confining people indoors with a disease spread by inhaling viral loaded air could reasonably do that.
ATS, Jeff and others naturally said I had it all wrong.
JT – Drs. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough were saying this 2 years ago. I am worried about you. If you keep talking like this, the branch covidians are going to start calling you a nazi, picket your office and ask for your firing. Glad you have tenure. And you might even stop getting invites to Georgetown cocktail parties.
antonio
Can we now stop calling the jabs, a vaccine? It does not stop contracting the Virus and does not prevent the spread of the virus.
Its an OK theraputic. Almost as good as Ivermectin.
These are false, straw-man claims about what a virus vaccine is supposed to do, set up in order to punch down the vaccines. What vaccine developer ever claimed ability to “stop contracting the virus”? The official claim about the benefits of a specific vaccine involve more than stringing together 3 or 4 words. The late 2020 claims from Pfizer, validated by the CDC and FDA, have lived up to promise.
The durability of protection from serious Covid illness was an unspecified number of months, based on what could be measured in an accelerated clinical trial. The subsequent need for a booster at 9 months in no way undermines the original claim.
Nor does the fact that fully vaccinated persons later died of Covid — the claim was 94%, not 100%. Big difference when you’re talking about how many will escape protection in a nation of 340,000,000. That predicts about 60,000 of those in the first fully-vaccinated 1 million who caught the virus enough to get PCR-tested positive went on to develop serious Covid. In the Covid ICUs, you find 12 unvaccinated for every vaccinated patient. That translates to 92% protection from receiving vaccination — pretty close to the 94% claim (which measured hospitalizations).
This pandemic hit at the beginning of a Presidential election year, bad timing. The Dems and Biden Campaign got off on the wrong foot by laying responsibility for all Covid deaths at the feet of the incumbent, Pres. Trump. So, fear and loathing was a campaign tactic. You simply cannot solve a complex, gnarly problem when you tribalize around such wild assertions.
The US is most vulnerable to bad policy decisions in these election years.
Nor does the fact that fully vaccinated persons later died of Covid — the claim was 94%, not 100%.
Moving the goal posts. The claim was 94% effective at protecting against infection. 100% effective at preventing death.
Now they are talking about boosters every 3 months and it appears omicron is immune from the “vacccine”.
Also this does not address the Govt ignoring all the natural immunity.
Getting lost in arguing the minutia of details, obscures all the lies pushed by the govt. Lies that might be explained. if the motivation was understood. Whats the saying. Dont chalk up to malice, actions that can be explained by incompetence.
All of this exposes what the self identified “expert” leadership, actual performs like.
More died under FJB’s watch
To be clear, this study has not been peer-reviewed.
“The Studies in Applied Economics series fills gaps in the history, statistics, and scholarship on a variety of subjects. The authors are mainly Fellows of the Institute and students at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who conduct research under the general direction of Prof. Steve H. Hanke, Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.”
Hanke is one of the authors. So this is a self-published study.
Is it correct in its analysis? I haven’t read it in full yet. I doubt that Turley read it before referencing it. My guess is that he just likes the conclusion.
Even just in starting to read it, look at their definition: “Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).”
So according to that definition, a county imposing a mask mandate is a lockdown! FFS, a mask mandate is NOT a lockdown. That alone would cause this paper to be rejected if it were submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Then look at how they identified the studies to include in their meta-analysis. They excluded a number of studies that were relevant to their question.
I sure hope that Turley does a more careful job teaching his students and writing papers for publication than he does in his own self-publishing here at his blog.
To be clear, this study has not been peer-reviewed.
I guess we just keep using the peer reviewed studies they used when the mandates and lockdowns were instituted….Oh WAIT… There is no such study. Peer reviewed or not. They just crashed the economy because????? Well that’s that’s where conspiracy theories germanate. Watered by secrecy and fed by lies.
Two weeks to flattenthe curve. That’s one of the few true things they said.
Flattening the curve spread out the time line of deaths. NOT prevent death.
@anonymous
Let’s be clear, the guys from John Hopkins who wrote this are nazis too! Or perhaps you can come up with a more appropriate slur. S@@tlibs are good at name calling those who disagree with them.
antonio
No, antonio, they’re not Nazis, and I haven’t used any slur. I pointed out some facts about the study that Turley cited.
You’re the one name-calling here.
@anonymous
Well, I’m fair and commend you for not name calling. Leftists usually refuse to debate and love to name call their opponents. Will give you extra points if you pledge to not doxx your opponents.
antonio
Anon,
You stated;
“ Even just in starting to read it, look at their definition: “Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).
So according to that definition, a county imposing a mask mandate is a lockdown! FFS, a mask mandate is NOT a lockdown. That alone would cause this paper to be rejected if it were submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.”
Here are the first three sentences of the study abstract. Apparently you never got past the second sentence of the sixty-two page study before creating your mask mandate straw man and determining that the study should be rejected.
“This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.”
“Apparently you never got past the second sentence of the sixty-two page study before creating your mask mandate straw man and determining that the study should be rejected.”
No, Ray, you’ve clearly misinterpreted my comment. Yes, I did quote from the abstract, but I didn’t stop reading there, though I still haven’t read the entire article.
I did not introduce a “mask mandate straw man.”
My point is that their definition results in them including studies of things that would not be considered a “lockdown” under any normal definition of “lockdown.” They include mask mandates as a lockdown, as they make more explicit later (e.g., page 5: “Our definition
does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc.”).
They include some studies of mask mandates in their meta-analysis (e.g., pages 14-15: “Chernozhukov et al. (2021) find that employee mask mandates reduces mortality by 34%”), and they reject others from the meta-analysis for no clear reason (e.g., page 7: “Although the search agent returned several hits during this period, only one of them, An et al. (2021), was eligible according to our eligibility criteria. The study is not included in our review …”). Perhaps you didn’t read far enough yourself.
Anon, you are correct, I did not read far enough myself.
That’s OK. Glad we were able to resolve it.
Anonymous, that’s not surprising given how Turley’s columns have come to be lately. Disingenuous attempts at posing a narrative of certainty. As a tenured professor and one who prides himself in arguing of details Turley sure has been quite sloppy and selective on what he omits to portray a misleading narrative.
To cite a study that has not been peer reviewed and omit that pertinent piece of information is the very definition of disingenuous.
The fact it has not been “peer-reviewed” doesn’t mean the study is wrong in its findings and conclusions. That goes to the weight an individual may want to give the study, not whether the study is correct in its findings or not. It’s just another piece of evidence to be considered by Americans. If you don’t agree with it, ignore it. If you agree with it, great. But, it doesn’t undermine what Professor Turley wrote.
Like all “opinions,” whether expert or not, the trier of fact is free to ignore them if they believe the underlying facts upon which the of opinion is based are false or incorrect.
“The fact it has not been “peer-reviewed” doesn’t mean the study is wrong in its findings and conclusions.”
I agree. I didn’t claim otherwise. However, peer review is a good means of catching problematic issues, such as their bizarre definition for “lockdown.”
“it doesn’t undermine what Professor Turley wrote.”
Whether or not he’s read the study that he cited certainly matters. If by “lockdown,” Turley means something different than the study authors, then it’s incumbent on him to say so and clarify how he’s defining “lockdown.” On the other hand, if Turley is using the same bizarre definition as the authors, then it’s incumbent on him to explain why he’s using such a bizarre definition — one that includes mask mandates as a “lockdown.” A mask mandate is NOT a lockdown, and if they wanted to include mask mandates in their study, then they shouldn’t have used a term “lockdown” to characterize the set of actions they were studying.
Anon: “To be clear, this study has not been peer-reviewed.”
+++
Neither are your comments.
But you probably don’t mean for them to be taken seriously.
Turley doesn’t have a perfect batting average but he is pretty good. You on the other hand have a batting average of close to zero. Just look at all the wrong positions you have taken on this blog. Your ideology justifies never being right.
“To be clear, this study has not been peer-reviewed.”
To be clear: That is a red herring.
The only relevant issue is: Are their arguments true or false?
(“Self-published” is also a red herring and a flimsy ad hominem.)
Many of us still have mandates including the mask even though they dont work. The CDC says tthe mask is just a decoration. No it is much more than that. It is a symbol of a government that failed its people.
That is the crux of a well prepared and substantive debate. One side may be correct from their point of view. But the opposing argument presents evidence of why it is wrong from their perspective. The one side (or the other) is not necessarily wrong but failed to see every aspect of the matter.
“Come now, let us reason together…”
When any person or entity attempts to shut down debate, especially open and honest dialogue, it is a red flag and a danger warning to proceed with caution.
For those of us that were put in Face Book Jail or banned from Twitter…..do we now have standing and cause for a Class Action Law Suit against Big Tech?
Can we sue MSNBC, CNN, and all the other Democrat Propaganda Outlets posing as “News Shows”?
Just asking for a friend!
RChap – I do hope you’re friend is successful it might bring some equilibrium back to this nation.
Et al: I was warned decades ago to stay off those platforms Ralph, I understand now. Most everyone is leaving them going to new free speech platforms. I see at least Twitter stock appears to be being shorted heavily, it’s down around 50%.
Klaus Schwab, UN’sWEF, Bill Gates, Soros, assorted Billionaire Self Hating, American Hating Trash are currently attacking us with all the force they have left after failing. In case you didn’t notice their lil Cloward/Pevins game flooding us with over 11 million illegals last year & the rest of their crap.
And how is it our best men in the military supposed to do their job when the queers Austin, Millie & his “Admiral buddy” has them running around in bras, panties, Nylons & Red High Heals. I guess their plan is to make the Chinese/Russians/Iranians Horny? LOL I haven’t a clue?
(White House today openly Attacks Joe Rogan!!!!!! WH say’s My God look, the Slave Joe Rogan has the Nerve to still Think he, a US Citizen, has Free Speech!!!!! What a pack of full Blown Commie/Nazi type Azzzhole,!!! LOL;) )
They appear from news reports to be continuing stepping up with more False Flags against us Citizens in their desperation, like knocking out the Electric to NYC/DC, LA, West Coast. We’ll see what they do when they do it.
Well, if it’s all just an experiment I think I failed.
Do you remember this back in January 2020, Dr. Fauci said “Coronavirus is not a major threat to the people of the United States”, then “masks won’t help”, then “masks stop the virus “, then mandates. Somewhere after that the nation went into a tailspin. What changed, manipulation of an election, censorship, money, CONTROL?
The real casualty of Covid is that a large percentage of the population, myself included, will never trust public health officials again. They earned it. Same for the mass media.
papper: True. And now let’s see the leftist single-payer crowd try to convince the public that the government should control all health care. Given the lockdowns, the race criteria for treatment, and the failure of positive messaging, they’ve put all the nails in that coffin.
, myself included, will never trust
public healthgovernment officials again.Most sentient beings understand the evolving reasons for the shutdowns/mandates/intimidations. Even the Canadians are getting it (let us hope that the Australians and New Zealanders follow suit).
perhaps morality is not the appropriate endpoint of the study; new cases would be more useful.
Except that, no that isn’t useful. ‘New cases’ can mean anything – asymptomatic, mild to no symptoms, not a big deal, as with colds or flu, i.e. everyone is pretty much ok. A metric that *would* be useful is new cases vs. hospitalization, and I guarantee you that number is so low as to almost not be acknowledged, as with cold, or flu. Your logic is the kind that isn’t, particularly useful for anyone that is actually studying a virus with any degree of rigor. Mortality and hospitalizations are at this point the *only* endpoint that is useful. And on top of that, including other health factors such as obesity and co-morbitidy within those numbers. That is how medical science *works*. And I guarantee you that by now those numbers are supremely low relative t ‘new cases’, and that within those numbers there are many distinctions that eliminate virtually all of the rest of us. And if one actually understands how a virus works, the next variant will be even weaker than *that*. And if you can, wrap your mind around the fact that this was not even the first coronavirus, and that never in history have we shut down the world for a coronavirus, and the end of the species did not in any way, shape, pr form result from it.
Sorry for the phone typos. It happens to the best of us.
“Sin sore ship”.
When boats left from Japan in WWII they were kaden with sin.
Germans were worse.
To put out a sin ship is terrible. Spell the words right. It’s not “censorship”.
Can you provide us a link to th study?
jerry silberman — he does in the first sentence.
Gee, ya think? Many of us were saying this as early as June of 2020. I won’t ever forget what was done to humanity at large by Liberals around the world, and I will shop, invest, and vote accordingly.
Censorship has always been about power and the left is using censorship to silence and diminish its opponents.
Combine that trend with politicians tendency (of both sides) to grab power – see Fauci – and we got a perfect storm of inferior Covid policies.