[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 ,