![]() The policies which comprised “lockdown” varied dramatically between countries, meaning defining the term is problematic. This report on the effect of “lockdowns” does not significantly advance our understanding of the relative effectiveness of the plethora of public health measures adopted by different countries to limit COVID-19 transmission. Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, also found this definition of a lockdown problematic: For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange. This would make a mask wearing policy a lockdown. The authors define lockdown as “as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention”. The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is. “I find this paper has flaws and needs to be interpreted very carefully. Samir Bhatt, professor of statistics and public health, Imperial College London, said: This paper, however, defines a lockdown as "the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)." This means that this study interprets a mask-wearing requirement as a "lockdown," even if that requirement did not prevent a person from visiting public spaces. In terms of the pandemic, many people would take "lockdown" to refer to a requirement for people to stay inside their homes (not attending public events, school, going to restaurants, or leaving for any other non-essential reason.) The common definition of a "lockdown" is a mandatory state of isolation. While many media reports on this working paper noted that "lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent," this may give readers a false impression of what this working paper actually found. While we can't say if Hanke's political opinions influenced the conclusions of this working paper, he has repeatedly posted messages on Twitter equating lockdowns with fascism. An open letter from 285 "public health researchers and professionals and concerned citizens" to Johns Hopkins University demanded an apology from Hanke and claimed that his tweet was "more politically driven than evidence based." Hanke later deleted the tweet. It's worth noting that Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, was at the center of a brief controversy in June 2020 after he erroneously claimed that Vietnam had not reported any COVID-19 data. This work was conducted by three economists, not epidemiologists: Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. "Throughout the pandemic, most COVID research out of Johns Hopkins University has typically come from its Coronavirus Resource Center, an initiative run out the university's world-renowned medical school.īut the new paper, which was drafted by three economists, comes out of the university's unaffiliated Krieger School of Arts and Sciences." Who Wrote This Paper? Rather it comes from the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, a branch of JHU unaffiliated with the Coronavirus Resource Center: While many media outlets presented this working paper as if it was a "Johns Hopkins study," this report would be more accurately described as a non-peer-reviewed working paper by three economists, one of whom is an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University.įurthermore, the National Post noted that this paper did not come from Johns Hopkins University's Coronavirus Resource Center. This study was not endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. This opening paragraph contains one other important detail. The authors state as much in a brief description at the top of the study: A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process. The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a "working paper" by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. Who is it from? What are the specific claims? What evidence are those claims based on? A Working Paper, Not Peer-Reviewed Published Study As this study appeared to run counter to previous reports that found lockdowns saved lives, we wanted to take a closer look at it. The paper claimed that the lockdowns implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic had little impact on preventing deaths. ![]() In February 2022, a number of conservative news outlets reported on a working paper entitled "A Literature Review and Meta Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality" by a group of scholars at Johns Hopkins University.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |