Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
hardusettminapa
Bevisen för att lockdowns är värdelösa fortsätter att hagla in. 7 peer-granskade studier:
https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cesifo/ifab003/6199605
“Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that
more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full
“Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including
lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786
“
Lockdowns do not reduce COVID-19 deaths.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484
“While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.
Ovanstående artiklar är publicerade i skräpjournaler. Ignoreras.
Citat:
To be clear, our findings do not mean that sheltering in place and social distancing behaviors had no effect on the disease. Indeed, the health benefits of SIP orders were likely limited because many people were already social distancing before the introduction of SIP orders, and others failed to comply with SIP orders in a highly politicized pandemic. Our results also do not mean that other government actions, such as emergency declarations or public health advisories, had no effect, nor do they mean that future SIP orders could not be more effective.
Citat:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84092-1
“
We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.”
Granskar man metoden lite närmare så upptäcker man en del tydliga bias. Tillexempel ingår bara personer som använder sig av Googletjänster som har aktiverat sin platshistorik. Säkerligen de flesta Androidanvändare. Detta är ett mycket olämpligt urval för att studera covid - dödlighet, av triviala skäl. De som har störst risk att dö i covid (äldre) är sannolikt inte ens representerade i datasetet.
Citat:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
“
Full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
Här blir din cherry picking uppenbar. Inte bara har du klistrat in alla artiklar som du tror stödjer vad du vill få fram, varifrån du än funnit dem (misstänka rovtidsskrifter bl.a).
Du har även Quote-minat artiklar som inte alls stödjer vad du skulle vilja påstå, för att få det att se ut som att de stödjer dig.
Edit.
Hittade ett ännu allvarligare fel (och det första var allvarligt) i nature-scientific reports-artikeln.
Titta här:
https://support.google.com/covid19-mobility/answer/9825414?hl=en
Också en "bias towards the null" som borde vara uppenbar. Ser du vad jag syftar på
hardusettminapa?