zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
This is a really biased article pushing a particular viewpoint. If it wasn't, you would also include the studies the demonstrate the number of lives saved by lockdowns that happened, the impact of different levels and types of lockdowns etc.

A good summary with links is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/counting-the-lives-sa...

>>aplumm+DS
Obligatory

“Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that lockdowns have done little to reduce COVID deaths but have had “devastating effects” on economies and numerous social ills.”

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature...

>>luxury+3U
Also obligatory is to point out the fact that the "study" was not peer reviewed; that it was written by economists, not public health experts (and has been severely criticized by several people who are recognized experts); that one of the authors (Hanke) is a senior director at a so-called think tank known for its is extreme pro-market bias; and that he published several basically crank tweets comparing lockdowns with 1930s German fascism.

>>akhmat+XV
But did you read it?

>>luxury+xo2
I read enough of it to perform a basic smell test, yes. And in fact it's pretty easy to spot some of its more obvious shortcomings, as other reviewers have.

Exactly as we would expect to find in the output of ideologically-driven academics working far outside of their own fields.

>>akhmat+r63
What would the motive be to make a fake research paper? We should compare that of the motive partisan government leaders have to force lockdowns.

>>luxury+6U6
What would the motive be to make a fake research paper?

Few things are more seductive than the knowledge that your cause is just. And that you, and your tribe, just have to be right.