zlacker

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+(OP)
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+q1
Also obligatory is to point out the fact that the "study" was not peer reviewed; that it was written by economists, not public health experts (and has been severely criticized by several people who are recognized experts); that one of the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.

>>aplumm+(OP)
Some of those studies strike me as wildly off base. E.g.

> On a more positive note, Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College London published a model in Nature around the same time estimating that more than 3 million deaths had been avoided in the UK as a result of the policies that were put in place.

3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.

Also:

> The most effective measure, they found, was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect.

That article appears to agree with this one.

>>everfo+b8
Which is a fine point to make! but to reference zero published studies talking about lives saves from Nature etc is a clear bias.

>>everfo+b8
I can't vouch for the specific number but the IFR with good treatment is very different from the number you get if healthcare is overwhelmed. There's a tipping point where a lot of people that normally would "just" be hospitalized won't make it, and the scary part is that it also affects the 45-60 years old.

You would also have to consider people who cannot be treated for other diseases (e.g. appendicitis), compound effects on the number of available beds due to doctors and nurses being sick, etc.

>>everfo+b8
> 3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.

Looks like the article on the-scientist summarized the relevant study incorrectly. The study itself posits 3.1 million deaths averted across 11 countries in Europe, not just in the UK:

> We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.

A bit concerning though that the second paragraph in the the-scientist article made such a significant mistake in summarizing the research.

>>akhmat+k3
But did you read it?

>>luxury+Uv1
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+Od2
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+t16
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.