DanM wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockdowns-reduced-covid-19-mortality-by-2-study-finds-lockdowns-should-be-rejected-out-of-handThe researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.
"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.
Let's get purely academic about this.
Studies are funded by grants. The grant comes from a certain agency or group that wishes to see the study and will fund the research.
As a result, the researchers find a way to successfully show the preferred conclusion.
This study is showing two different tiers and blending it improperly into one.
They can't say it had little effect because there was no control sample -- one of unmitigated Covid.
The study itself is a non-sequitur. It's economists weighing some data vs imaginary death rates if there were no lockdowns.
Just because it's Johns Hopkins does not automatically mean it's valid.
Even Buck Sexton and Clay Travis tried to explain the study and what the data says especially with regard to masks in schools, and they both digressed into speaking about kids with masks in schools like dads would, not just the study.