“but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures“
Well,, duh. That’s what we have been saying… The “Lockdowns” and business closures have damaged the economy, but done nothing to prevent the spread of Covid (and remember, Covid , while a deadly disease, DOES have a 99.6% survival rate).So, in essence, we have damaged our economy, caused tens of thousands of businesses to close, caused millions of people to be unemployed…….for little gain. (except possibly to damage the Trump economy).
Of course, now that Trump is gone, the mayors and governors of Blue areas are pushing to “reopen” their bars and restaurants and loosen those restrictions because “The cost is too high”. Now that Biden is the President, expect things to change so the economy will rebound under Biden’s “Leadership”.
Did you read the article? Here's a couple of lines from it:
"Though this study's approach did not determine any significant benefits to implementing mandatory lockdowns, others have shown that lockdowns have saved millions of lives."
"A study published by researchers at Imperial College London in June found that some 3.1 million deaths had been averted due to lockdowns across Europe early on in the pandemic, Reuters reported."
"Additional research found that 530 million coronavirus infections had been avoided due to early lockdowns in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France and the United States, according to the news outlet."
So this Stanford study is hardly a definitive answer to the question of whether to lockdown or not, but it certainly fits your narrative.
By the way, approximately 12,000 people died of Covid-19 from January 13-January 15, per John Hopkins CSSE.
Anybody that believes ANYTHING coming out of the Imperial College is taking their lives in their own hands…
Pete: You need correction:
12,000 people died EITH covid.
and yes, I read the whole article, and noted that the prevarication was there. However, those studies were done by the IMperial College, which has become a mouthiece fior the Government and has long ago lost all credibility in order to retain it's funding.
Of course, you want to believe what you want to believe. You are a follower, and you toe the line as to what your party says, so I fully expected to have you make a comment like this.
You too have no credibility.
Not sure what EITH means, but I do need to correct the dates–approximately 12,000 people died of covid from Jan. 12-14.
Also, I haven't really told you anything about what I believe. I was just pointing out that your linked article didn't exactly say what you said it did. You cherry pick what you need for your narrative and all the rest becomes "fake news."
And let's talk about credibility. Do you recall your prediction of 30,000 deaths (an average flu year) from covid early last year? And then when that prediction started looking a little low, you readjusted to 50,000-60,000 (a severe flu year).
At least you've gained the sense to stop making predictions about this disease.
Thing is, "Pete" that the hundreds of thousands of Covid deaths are WITH covid, not FROM covid. Oddly, the number of people dying from other causes is very low…all those folks who would normally die from heart attacks and cancer and leukemia and ALL other causes are now "Covid Deaths"…or at least covid related Which count as covid deaths by JH and the feds….even the Feds and JH admit that..
In other words, I was right. THey changed the rules to change how the deaths were counted.
Never forget that even old folks survive this over 99% of the time.
But don't let the truth undemine you belief.
Maybe you weren't so right.
The newsletter is independent of the university, so JH and the Feds are not admitting this, only Ms. Briand.
Maybe I was right about your tendency to cherry pick.
But don't let the truth undermine your belief.
Funny how the articles you cite get retracted, and mine don't.