Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#2One thing I noticed here in California is that the societal behavior followed its own curve independent of the lockdowns. Ie. People locked down before lockdown was issued by government. When government lifted the lockdown people remained at home. When people started going out and cases went up people started staying at home again, then the lockdown came. So the lockdown itself had no impact although the removal of the lockdown would not have helped Most of the businesses who lost their customers.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#3Study Ottawa Canada. 4 waves, and the wave peaked 2 weeks after the imposition of stricter controls for all 4. It's all about compliance, and Ottawa has fairly good voluntary compliance and little of the essential industry that escaped lockdown and has been fueling the outbreaks elsewhere in Ontario.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#4Interesting that New Zealand and Australia were excluded from the study. Both had hard lockdowns and both eliminated the virus and are largely back to normal life. Makes me suspect the data was cherry picked to fit a desired outcome.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#5One thing I noticed here in California is that the societal behavior followed its own curve independent of the lockdowns. Ie. People locked down before lockdown was issued by government. When government lifted the lockdown people remained at home. When people started going out and cases went up people started staying at home again, then the lockdown came. So the lockdown itself had no impact although the removal of t…
The ripple effects will not settle soon.
Cutting down on the American workaholic tendency to show up at work on death's door from illness will be useful.
So will a telework shift.
The scary part is the recreational authoritarianism on offer from some quarters.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#6I spot-checked the first link:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484
The argument is the same well-hashed "Sweden is a counterexample" with mathematical window dressing. Bonus points for chopping the Sweden dataset before the big spike in Swedish cases even though the paper was published after the spike and is still being held up as a flagship example half a year after that.
Like the other anti-lockdown papers I've spot checked, I'm not impressed.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#7[deleted]
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#8Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#9I’m dubious of the papers.
The Lancet paper uses data only up to 1st May 2020, so really not much.
One uses the Imperial College model, which, after looking at the published source code, I am near certain is gibberish. My biases aside, peer review showed that it is very sensitive to input parameters, which is incidentally what the linked paper says about lockdown effects, so hard to take seriously IMHO.
Another says that after subtracting the effect of minor restrictions, the major restrictions had no measurable effect. But surely harsher restrictions are only brought in when rates are going up a lot, so maybe these two effects cancel out? Everyone, except Australia and NZ, avoid harsh lockdowns as much as they can.
Meanwhile, in the UK “2nd lockdown”, which was quite light, the overall R coef for Covid dropped below 1, but remained above 1 for the “British variant”, clearly showing that had the lockdown continued as it was, it would not be effective. Also there are just so many conspicuous timings with new cases peaking 1-2 weeks after harsher lockdowns are introduced, I think it’s hard to dismiss out of hand. Yeah, it’s technically possible that the causality isn’t there but I struggle to believe that.
Re: Papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy
#10Where I am, they were a populist measure to get votes, so in that regard, I'd say they were "effective".