Why I stopped mostly posting here, besides the time sink factor, is that we rehash the same #^&#^&#^&#^& every other week (on both sides).
Jim, this article came out in February. There was a thread on it when you posted it then. It was a non-reviewed paper by a trio of economists. This was not a John Hopkins study, it was a #^&#^&#^&#^&tily done literature review that got crucified by actual public health and epidemiologists. Read some of the reviews of this work and how seriously flawed it was.
From one article reviewing the referenced piece
'For starters, experts commenting for the U.K. Science Media Centre warned about the paper's questionable definition of "lockdown." Samir Bhatt, DPhil, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, said in that statement that the study's "most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is."
"The authors define lockdown as 'the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention [NPI].' This would make a mask-wearing policy a lockdown," Bhatt stated.'
I am not saying lockdowns should have been done, or shouldn't have been done. In the first months of the pandemic there were A LOT of unknowns of this thing. Clearly there were innumerous negative consequences, but hindsight is 2020, and that is not the direction things went later in the pandemic.
back to
