USA: Three researchers who analyzed 24 different studies on the subject found that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdowns did absolutely nothing to stop the spread.
Led by Steve Hanke, co-founder of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise, the research first involved looking at an astounding 18,590 different studies from which the final 24 were selected.
From there, the team determined that lockdowns both in the United States and Europe pared the mortality rate from the Fauci Flu by 0.2 percent on average, which is statistically meaningless.
Similarly, shelter-in-place orders were found to reduce mortality by about 2.9 percent, which is also statistically meaningless when accounting for margins of error.
“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the researchers wrote.
“In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
Lockdowns, gathering limits actually increased mortality
Other measures the researchers looked at included mask mandates and travel bans – things that were mandatory, in other words, as opposed to voluntary.
In nearly every case, these mandates did not produce the results we were told they produced, with the exception of what the researchers now believe to be the closure of bars where alcohol is served.
“Only business closure consistently shows evidence of a negative relationship with COVID-19 mortality, but the variation in the estimated effect is large,” the study explains.
“Three studies find little to no effect, and three find large effects. Two of the larger effects are related to closing bars and restaurants.”
Overall, the study found, lockdowns and gathering limits did not reduce mortality, and in fact increased it by 0.6 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers further wrote.
This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the findings of a late-2020 meta-analysis which declared that lockdowns successfully reduced Fauci Flu mortality. This meta-analysis relied on several modeling studies that were “explicitly excluded” from the new research.
The new research does, however, affirm the findings of a later meta-analysis from last fall, which looked at 100 different studies. That one concluded, based on currently available evidence, “that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths.”
What these lockdowns did do, though, is cause needless pain and suffering as people were unnaturally forced into self-isolation, depriving them of healthy access to other human beings and social settings.
A whopping 40 percent of U.S. adults were forced to delay or avoid receiving urgent medical care in June 2020 during the height of the lockdowns. And in the United Kingdom, lockdown-related delays to lung cancer diagnoses were determined to have caused at least 2,500 additional deaths that would not have occurred had things remained free. This figure was determined by the U.K. Lung Cancer Coalition.
“We all know that the lockdowns were part of the total scheme to take power over the people of the world,” wrote someone at The Epoch Times “Look how it worked, too! Still running scared, wearing masks.”
“To call these ‘public health’ studies is a disgrace,” wrote another. “No mention of mental health impacts, suicide, deferred medical exams, deferred cancer screenings, deferred surgeries, deferred cardiac treatments, reduced capacity and availability of all forms of medical care. I could go on.”
“You don’t get a 40% increase in all-cause mortality in working-age adults in one year for no reason. All thinking people know what that reason is.”
posted by Weaver
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.