"“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
"It was determined that viral transmission declined when social distancing and other measures were implemented. In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population. These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."
"Preprints are early versions of research articles that have not been peer reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive and should not be reported in news media as established information."
Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field.
That is, your study found that while lockdowns did not impact the percentage of infected who got very sick and died (why would it?), lockdowns did very effectively reduce the overall number of cases which kept healthcare from being overwhelmed and so lockdowns were strongly associated faster recovery rates, LESS transmission and better outcomes overall. Even a year ago, this paper was strongly promoting the benefits of a full lockdown.
A year later, this paper is still not published but the paper's primary speculation, that herd immunity from coronavirus can be achieved when 17%-20% of the population is infected has been resoundingly disproved by actual events and doesn't seem to comprehend how herd immunity actually works. How would 1 person in 5 break the chain of transmission? Kuhbandner, et al. based that speculation on Diamond Princess cruise, although the fact that so many of the crew got infected compared to relatively few passengers ought to serve more as evidence that isolating passengers was an important protective measure.
So this paper makes no inference regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns, but suggests that the public was already self-quarantining and so reducing infection rates before the lockdowns began- which does not seem unreasonable supposition.This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases.
So here is a non-scientist predicting in mid-April of 2020 that the coronavirus just naturally plays itself out after 70 days and will no longer be a problem by mid-May. What actually happened was that the number of total cases more than doubled from 2 million to 4.5 million. One year later the disease has not played itself out and in fact continues to mutate into increasingly tough variants. There are now 171 million cases and that number will continue to increase for the next couple of years. This speculation was thoroughly discredited more than one year ago.
The American Institute for Economic Research is best known for the Great Barrington Declaration of last October which called on governments to halt all prevention and vaccination programs and allow herd immunity to solve the epidemic which statement was almost universally condemned by healthcare professionals, noting that libertarian economists are not healthcare experts. The US's leading infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense" and "unscientific."fatemperor/Ivor Cummins was an engineer promoting Keto diets before coining the term CASEDEMIC last summer, which is shorthand for a theory that COVID-19 is entirely harmless and the only reason we are tracking increased infections is due to increased testing, which theory scientists dismiss as conspiracy mongering and disinformation.I should point out that while your evidence is thoroughly discredited, each submission contradicts the others. Did public panic do more to prevent the disease's spread than lockdowns or did the disease just die out after 70 days? Is COVID actually harmless or is herd immunity achieved at 17% infection rates? It is as if you don't care whether your sources are consistent or in agreement, just so long as the scientific consensus is brought into question, no matter how disreputable or obviously wrong the claimant.
-As you said, these articles were written in the spring, I was ok with short term spring lockdowns in order for the medical supplies to get ready, it does make sense with faster recovery rates would come from a lockdown with that original purpose, but as the lockdown continued and the medical techniques only got better, I doubt the lockdown was associated with higher recovery rates now,
for transmission, the fact that a lockdown is the primary culprit of low transmission is a lie, the paper isn't making the claim itself,rather its citing a study referring to hong kong that found that practices like quarantine, social distancing, and border restrictions led to lower transmission.(which is true), Hong Kong actually avoided a lockdown thus there is no relation. The paper also only mentions "public health measures" and isn't particularly pro-lockdown.
The most important thing is the fact is that Germany's lockdowns did not aid the end of the covid spread. The paper is merely suggesting a reason why, I dont know much about herd immunity so i cant comment on that, no matter the cause, the facts remain
the conclusion isnt pulled from march 24 itself,
now obviously his prediction of how covid played out was wrong(granted, the heavy majority of predictions were)but it does contain data about patterns and lockdowns. His observation is correct, he just though that after the initial wave, there would not be another wave in the fall.
The barrington declaration is certainly interesting with some good points and bad points but thats not the subject
Second, covid isnt harmless but it does make sense that more testing = more cases found, right?
9 days later
-->@oromagiMy humour is usually from observing things or events which could be interpreted as humourous.
Shoppers are not breaking the law by lining up (while social distancing)to get into a store, i
a result of the fact that they have less places to shop at and can only buy certain items.
Greeting cards are just an example of so called non essentials, I for one couldn't care less about greeting cards, but how does buying non essentials effect the spread of Covid in any way shape or form.
Mr. Fords business has profited greatly from these restrictions.
Whereas Kids, can afford to be blase.
Yes I know that subtle, situational humour is not for everyone
people are not necessarily lining up to buy non essentials because those items won't scan at checkout.
People spread out buying essentials and non essentials causes no more threat than massive lineups at the grocery stores.
it's good to know that D. Ford is not making any money off of the business, or that there is no nepotism happening, I guess Fords increase in his worth is due to other factor and is just coincidental.
You've missed the point 100%.