Last thing a wingnut shill wants is for facts to intrude on narrative.

`````````````````````````````

So why did so many American mainstream media outlets IGNORE a reputable
university's study that lockdowns didn't work? New York Times,
Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CBS all failed to run the story because
they 'have their own narrative written'

A review by three economists found that COVID restrictions only
reduced COVID mortality rates by 0.2 percent
The study was published in the Studies in Applied Economics January
2022 edition but was largely ignored by mainstream media outlets
It was nowhere to be found on the New York Times, Washington Post
and ABC News websites
While some CBS and NBC affiliates reported on it, the national
networks did not
Dr. Martin Markay, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins
University, tore into the outlets on Wednesday
He warned they 'may already have their own narrative written' on
the effectiveness of COVID lockdowns

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10474269/Mainstream-news-outlets-IGNORE-Johns-Hopkins-study-COVID-lockdowns-reduced-deaths-0-2.html
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end - There it is !

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:29:31 -0500
Jesse <zo@so.org> wrote:

> So why did so many American mainstream media outlets IGNORE a
> reputable university's study that lockdowns didn't work?

Because it is propaganda bullshit from "economists" ?

> A review by three economists found that COVID restrictions only
> reduced COVID mortality rates by 0.2 percent

So, by their own admission, lockdown does work, did save lives.

If we look at the Daily Mail's own graphic -

Stay at home saved 2.9%
School closures saved 4.4%
Business closures saved 10.6%

So "didn't work" is simply bullshit. Those numbers amount to about 200,000 American lives saved.

The Daily Mail et al are just sore that others wouldn't carry the anti-lockdown propaganda they wanted carried, were happy to promote themselves.

They are pushing an agenda as they always do, and so are you. Perhaps one day you will explain why you want more Americans dead than fewer.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:46:23 +0000
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:29:31 -0500
> Jesse <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
> > So why did so many American mainstream media outlets IGNORE a
> > reputable university's study that lockdowns didn't work?
>
> Because it is propaganda bullshit from "economists" ?

As Dr Seth Flaxman, Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, put it -

"Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.

"This study intentionally excludes all studies rooted in epidemiology – the science of disease."

And "reputable university's study" overstates the status of the non-peer reviewed research.

One obvious pointer to lockdown having worked is the increasing number of deaths as those lockdown restrictions are lifted. Deaths in the UK have almost doubled since the latest relaxations, we now have almost 400 people a day dying and the Case-Fatality Rate is increasing again.

"Living with covid" means "dying of covid".

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:29:31 -0500
Jesse <zo@so.org> wrote:

> So why did so many American mainstream media outlets IGNORE a
> reputable university's study that lockdowns didn't work?

I hear next week's study will be "why locking people up in prison doesn't stop them going out and committing crime".

I also expect it to be ignored by anyone with a single cell of intelligence.

On 04/02/2022 03:29, Jesse wrote:
> Last thing a wingnut shill wants is for facts to intrude on narrative.
>
> `````````````````````````````
>
>
In fairness lockdown - at least the original idea of lockdown - wasn't
exactly to lower the death rate it was to lower the intensive care
admission rate. People would still die of coronavirus if they were
going to, but they hopefully wouldn't be dying because their hospital
was out of oxygen (as happened in India I think - Sky News showed it).

That said I think lockdown and lockdown powers were horribly misused. I
don't expect anyone to be held to account for it or for any laws to stop
it happening again to be written, but we know that the public were
abused. People being lectured by police for being outside in their own
gardens and people here having their shopping trolleys searched to
ensure they hadn't bought any contraband 'unnecessary items'. Where
were they when aid workers from Ebola hospitals were returning to attend
weddings?

The lockdowns should have been by consent, goodwill and maybe a bit of
good solid peer-pressure with slack offered as appropriate to people who
had done nothing to bring this on themselves and who up to then had led
legally blameless lives. Lockdown should never have turned into an act
of civic generosity into rigidly-enforced house arrest... unless you're
name is Boris obviously.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 00:31:48 +0000
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 04/02/2022 03:29, Jesse wrote:
> > Last thing a wingnut shill wants is for facts to intrude on
> > narrative.
> >
> > `````````````````````````````
> >
> >
> In fairness lockdown - at least the original idea of lockdown -
> wasn't exactly to lower the death rate it was to lower the intensive
> care admission rate.

That was the Junta's approach. Other countries did it properly, imposed lockdowns to save lives.

> That said I think lockdown and lockdown powers were horribly misused.

I have no disagreement with that. The Junta legalised police bullying and the police went out and bullied people.

> The lockdowns should have been by consent, goodwill and maybe a bit
> of good solid peer-pressure with slack offered as appropriate to
> people who had done nothing to bring this on themselves and who up to
> then had led legally blameless lives. Lockdown should never have
> turned into an act of civic generosity into rigidly-enforced house
> arrest... unless you're name is Boris obviously.

It's not that simple. If you are hunkered down in your local radiation bunker because the world has turned to shit, are you going to allow those who claim they must have the freedom to throw open the bunker doors to do so ?

Lockdown was generally by consent; but there were a few who refused to consent.

In fact it was more than by consent; it was the majority demanding lockdowns which forced the Junta to bow to those demands.

It was always going to be difficult, protecting people from those who didn't care if they caught it, spread it, killed people, balancing the freedoms of those who wanted the right to kill and those who wanted the right not to be killed.

I am sure that during the blitz some thought they should be able to keep their lights burning and their blackout curtains open. Sacrifices for the public good, the greater good, are often enforced when people won't voluntarily consent. That's democracy.

In the good old days we used to execute those who wouldn't go out of the trenches and over the top. That's properly taking away peoples freedom and choice.