Staggering COVID-19 Statistic: 98% to 99% of Americans Dying are Unvaccinated

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

johns hopkins says the lockdowns didn’t do much. but you know better then the scientists at john’s hopkins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So... One faculty was from John Hopkins, that doesn't mean 'John Hopkins Says'. Also, note the authors were economists, not public health professionals, epidemiologists, virologists etc... That doesn't invalidate it but I would have liked to see a more diverse background of authors on a meta analysis of this type...

So, then why is this one (flawed) meta analysis is making the rounds today as the proof that lock downs didn't work....

A "Meta Analysis" that used 34 studies (out of the thousands that have been done) examining these approaches to the mandates.

A meta analysis that limited studies so they were only by economists, political scientists AND NOT epidemiologists, virologists and other public health backgrounds.

A meta analysis that lumped 'lock downs' to include almost any mandate (masking, capacity limits, restaurants closing early etc..) and also not 'when' these 'lock downs' were implemented

Now why would these authors of this meta analysis (and yes, I keep restating the type of study for a reason) limit it to those few studies and lump everything together as a 'lock down'...

Perhaps to get the answer the study authors wanted?

And perhaps it is making the rounds this week because of confirmation bias?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Now why would these authors of this meta analysis (and yes, I keep restating the type of study for a reason) limit it to those few studies and lump everything together as a 'lock down'...

probably like calling every death a covid death even if someone died from something else but happened to have covid

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So... One faculty was from John Hopkins, that doesn't mean 'John Hopkins Says'. Also, note the authors were economists, not public health professionals, epidemiologists, virologists etc... That doesn't invalidate it but I would have liked to see a more diverse background of authors on a meta analysis of this type...

So, then why is this one (flawed) meta analysis is making the rounds today as the proof that lock downs didn't work....

A "Meta Analysis" that used 34 studies (out of the thousands that have been done) examining these approaches to the mandates.

A meta analysis that limited studies so they were only by economists, political scientists AND NOT epidemiologists, virologists and other public health backgrounds.

A meta analysis that lumped 'lock downs' to include almost any mandate (masking, capacity limits, restaurants closing early etc..) and also not 'when' these 'lock downs' were implemented

Now why would these authors of this meta analysis (and yes, I keep restating the type of study for a reason) limit it to those few studies and lump everything together as a 'lock down'...

Perhaps to get the answer the study authors wanted?

And perhaps it is making the rounds this week because of confirmation bias?

all possibilities.

but again, if lockdowns were the answer, i’d think we’d see lower death rates in states with strictest lockdowns. are we seeing that with any consistency?

Everyone ( and i do it to, but not constantly) only pays attention when they see what they want to see.

if we should only be listening to epidemiologists ( which makes sense) please explain why teachers unions are wielding so
much influence in all this?

it’s been a largely political
exercise from day one, that applies to both sides.

if you want to say policy should
be formulated by epidemiologists, fine. But when the left takes its marching orders from teachers unions in terms of school policies, you sort of surrender your ability to make that argument, don’t you? in terms of school policy, we’ve ignored the science in return for appeasing teachers unions, and there’s no way you can make that wrong. The data is clear that schools arent transmission hot spots. i have no idea why that is, but it’s clearly the case. Yet we keep schools closed when teachers unions snap their fingers.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but again, if lockdowns were the answer, i’d think we’d see lower death rates in states with strictest lockdowns. are we seeing that with any consistency?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think we will ever be able to quantify over time the number of deaths that were a side effect of covid lockdowns from depression, isolation, delayed treatment/procedures, increased poor health habits which we know are/were all rampant... lack of early intervention and treatment also a big contributor

they knew very early on who were the most vulnerable, that is still the case....

it was all very political, still is...

I wonder if the democrats should try to ban "anti-vaxxers" from voting...that might work

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I don't think we will ever be able to quantify over time the number of deaths that were a side effect of covid lockdowns from depression, isolation, delayed treatment/procedures, increased poor health habits which we know are/were all rampant... lack of early intervention and treatment also a big contributor

they knew very early on who were the most vulnerable, that is still the case....

it was all very political, still is...

I wonder if the democrats should try to ban "anti-vaxxers" from voting...that might work

every life saved by a lockdown, needs to be weighed against the lives lost, and what must be staggering damage done to so many.

for whatever reason, the lefties here act like the lockdowns are their children. they can’t discuss any possible downside of lockdowns. the denial is really something. it’ll get more intense as we get closer to the midterms, if polling stays where it is, and that’s a big if.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for whatever reason, the lefties here act like the lockdowns are their children.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they also think governors who institute lockdowns and mandates of all kinds are not authoritarians but the governors who repeal lockdowns and mandates of all kinds ARE authoritarians...

so that's kinda what we're dealing with

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

they also think governors who institute lockdowns and mandates of all kinds are not authoritarians but the governors who repeal lockdowns and mandates of all kinds ARE authoritarians...

so that's kinda what we're dealing with

as i said, that’s some impressive denial. you’re right, of course, they have it exactly backwards. trump displayed some totalitarian inclinations after the election loss for sure. but it didn’t work and almost nobody supports whet he tried to do. god i hope he doesn’t run again. but in the meantime, literally the only card they can play is that trump “is” the GOP. he’s the single
most influential person for sure, but a lot of republicans don’t like him.

if the polls stay where they are ( probably not but who knows) watch how unhinged they get as we get closer to november.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

they also think governors who institute lockdowns and mandates of all kinds are not authoritarians but the governors who repeal lockdowns and mandates of all kinds ARE authoritarians...

so that's kinda what we're dealing with

especially when there are endless examples of the democrat leaders happily violating the mandates they demand the rest of us live by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So... One faculty was from John Hopkins, that doesn't mean 'John Hopkins Says'. Also, note the authors were economists, not public health professionals, epidemiologists, virologists etc... That doesn't invalidate it but I would have liked to see a more diverse background of authors on a meta analysis of this type...

So, then why is this one (flawed) meta analysis is making the rounds today as the proof that lock downs didn't work....

A "Meta Analysis" that used 34 studies (out of the thousands that have been done) examining these approaches to the mandates.

A meta analysis that limited studies so they were only by economists, political scientists AND NOT epidemiologists, virologists and other public health backgrounds.

A meta analysis that lumped 'lock downs' to include almost any mandate (masking, capacity limits, restaurants closing early etc..) and also not 'when' these 'lock downs' were implemented

Now why would these authors of this meta analysis (and yes, I keep restating the type of study for a reason) limit it to those few studies and lump everything together as a 'lock down'...

Perhaps to get the answer the study authors wanted?

And perhaps it is making the rounds this week because of confirmation bias?

Lots of criticisms of the study are out there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=2ae66efd1225

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Lots of criticisms of the study are out there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=2ae66efd1225

sounds like unbiased commentary...

"Have you seen the so-called “Johns Hopkins study” that’s been making the social media and Bill Maher rounds lately? "

hope Rogan doesn't mention it...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Lots of criticisms of the study are out there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=2ae66efd1225

What to know about Glenn Youngkin’s newest COVID-19 adviser
The governor-elect appointed Dr. Marty Makary, a regular Fox News commentator, to chair his new medical advisory team

kowtowing to the Base Classic

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What to know about Glenn Youngkin’s newest COVID-19 adviser
The governor-elect appointed Dr. Marty Makary, a regular Fox News commentator, to chair his new medical advisory team

kowtowing to the Base Classic

so you are saying he appointed an accomplished doctor as a medical advisor?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you are saying he appointed an accomplished doctor as a medical advisor?

he's appeared on Fox News, so obviously he's a Nazi Sympathizer

Dr. Marty Makary is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. He writes for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal and is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay. Dr. Makary served in leadership at the World Health Organization Patient Safety Program and has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine.

Clinically, Dr. Makary is the chief of Islet Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins. He is the recipient of the Nobility in Science Award from the National Pancreas Foundation and has been a visiting professor at over 25 medical schools. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has served as on several editorial boards.

Dr. Makary is the recipient of the 2020 Business Book of the Year Award by the Association of Business Journalists for his most recent book, The Price We Pay. It has been described by Don Berwick as “a deep dive into the real issues driving up the price of health care” and by Steve Forbes as “A must-read for every American”.

Dr. Makary serves as a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a professor, by courtesy, at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. His current research focuses on the underlying causes of disease, public policy, health care costs, and relationship-based medicine.

Education: Bucknell University, Harvard University, Thomas Jefferson University

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

he's appeared on Fox News, so obviously he's a Nazi Sympathizer

Dr. Marty Makary is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. He writes for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal and is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay. Dr. Makary served in leadership at the World Health Organization Patient Safety Program and has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine.

Clinically, Dr. Makary is the chief of Islet Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins. He is the recipient of the Nobility in Science Award from the National Pancreas Foundation and has been a visiting professor at over 25 medical schools. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has served as on several editorial boards.

Dr. Makary is the recipient of the 2020 Business Book of the Year Award by the Association of Business Journalists for his most recent book, The Price We Pay. It has been described by Don Berwick as “a deep dive into the real issues driving up the price of health care” and by Steve Forbes as “A must-read for every American”.

Dr. Makary serves as a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a professor, by courtesy, at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. His current research focuses on the underlying causes of disease, public policy, health care costs, and relationship-based medicine.

Education: Bucknell University, Harvard University, Thomas Jefferson University

but he has been on Foxnews! who cares that he’s an expert in causes of disease and public health policy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but he has been on Foxnews! who cares that he’s an expert in causes of disease and public health policy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

has Fauci been on MSNBC?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So... One faculty was from John Hopkins, that doesn't mean 'John Hopkins Says'. Also, note the authors were economists, not public health professionals, epidemiologists, virologists etc... That doesn't invalidate it but I would have liked to see a more diverse background of authors on a meta analysis of this type...

So, then why is this one (flawed) meta analysis is making the rounds today as the proof that lock downs didn't work....

A "Meta Analysis" that used 34 studies (out of the thousands that have been done) examining these approaches to the mandates.

A meta analysis that limited studies so they were only by economists, political scientists AND NOT epidemiologists, virologists and other public health backgrounds.

A meta analysis that lumped 'lock downs' to include almost any mandate (masking, capacity limits, restaurants closing early etc..) and also not 'when' these 'lock downs' were implemented

Now why would these authors of this meta analysis (and yes, I keep restating the type of study for a reason) limit it to those few studies and lump everything together as a 'lock down'...

Perhaps to get the answer the study authors wanted?

And perhaps it is making the rounds this week because of confirmation bias?

I tried that argument all ready! he saw it on Fox and now he's off to the races ,