Comments posted organically Homepage
Display Order:

AOC, MTG cat fight shuts down House Oversight Committee
Government by HatetheSwamp     May 17, 2024 4:25 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (7 comments) [92 views]

KC Chiefs' anti-Biden, Christian kicker Harrison Butker? Top selling NFL jersey.
Sports by HatetheSwamp     May 17, 2024 4:11 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [11 views]

Holy $#!t. pb's Legal Goober #3 predicts hung jury in Trump NY trial
Law by HatetheSwamp     May 17, 2024 12:10 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [32 views]

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector and the election
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 2.5) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (65 comments) [2256 views]

"Dictator douchebag”, “Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain” and other insults that Trump is forced to endure
Law by Curt_Anderson     May 14, 2024 5:05 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (9 comments) [144 views]

James Comer reveals shocking new developments in Biden impeachment investigation
President by HatetheSwamp     May 16, 2024 6:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [146 views]

Biden and Trump agree to debate twice; Trump has already made a tactical mistake.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     May 15, 2024 1:44 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [196 views]

How many times did they have to splice Joe's debate challenge?
President by HatetheSwamp     May 16, 2024 4:11 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [33 views]

TV news ratings
Media by HatetheSwamp     May 16, 2024 8:13 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [29 views]

Is Joe Biden too brain dead to be a hypocrite?
Health by HatetheSwamp     May 14, 2024 4:14 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [155 views]

Medical selectors, pages, etc.
Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows
By HatetheSwamp
February 2, 2022 6:38 am
Category: Medical

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

John's effin Hopkins University

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

Honestly, my guess is that progressive pols figured that out early on but the truth about them...and their that they love the Big Brother thing...and despise liberty...and, they were playing fascist games.

Cited and related links:


Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows":

  1. by Ponderer on February 2, 2022 7:14 am

    Wow. How totally and sociopathically misleading.

    “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,”

    mortality [ mawr-tal-i-tee ]
    noun, plural mor·tal·i·ties.
    2. the relative frequency of deaths in a specific population; death rate.

    In this case, the "specific population" is people who had contracted Covid-19. If you got Covid, being locked down or not had little to no affect on whether or not you were going to die from it.

    That is all this statistic means.

    There is actually no reason that the lockdowns and closures would have lessened the lethality of Covid for those who actually got it.

    Unfortunately, I know that for the life of you, you couldn't understand any of what I am saying. It's no wonder that you were suckered into thinking this meant something, like they wanted stupid, gullible idiots like you to think it did.

    What the lockdowns and closures did do was tremendously lessen the numbers of people who got Covid in the first place. That is an unassailable fact. One that you pro-Covid assholes find quite unpalatable.

    But hey, valiant effort pushing bullshit, deceptive propaganda there, Hate. You too, WaPo!

  2. by Ponderer on February 2, 2022 7:15 am

    CORRECTION: I meant the Washington Times. Not the Washington Post.

  3. by Ponderer on February 2, 2022 7:35 am

    I am just so sick of you fucking liars. Your lies are literally destroying this country and the lives of millions of its citizens.

    And you think it's all a big fucking joke, a big fucking game.

  4. by HatetheSwamp on February 2, 2022 8:11 am


    I'm merely passing on the results of research undertaken by Johns effin Hopkins. Ranked number nationally in 020. Hardly Bush league.

  5. by Ponderer on February 2, 2022 9:32 am

    You are merely passing on an out of context, intentionally biased, propagandization of research undertaken by Johns effin Hopkins.

    The article takes one sentence from the study and is trying to use it to make the underhanded assertion that the lockdowns and closures were essentially useless in combating Covid-19. Which they absolutely weren't, and the study you cite did not make that assertion.

    The lockdowns had a lot of very negative affects on our society, economically and societally. Especially with the suicide rates of the young. From that perspective, the lockdowns were detrimental. Certainly. No argument from me on that.

    But the notion that just about as many people would have died from Covid during the lockdown as would have had there been no lockdown at all, which is what these propagandists WANT you to think, is patently absurd. More Covid, more deaths from it. Less Covid, less deaths from it. It's that simple.

  6. by HatetheSwamp on February 2, 2022 10:01 am

    On a side note, po, the passion and commitment to your beliefs certainly adds zest to the dialog here.

    You da effin BOMB!!!!!!

  7. by Ponderer on February 2, 2022 10:20 am

    Well, Hate. Now that I know that it upsets and irks you so much, I'll keep it up.


  8. by HatetheSwamp on February 2, 2022 10:34 am


    I just said that I'm your biggest SS fan.

  9. by Donna on February 2, 2022 12:20 pm
    Decided to temporarily end my hiatus to comment on this.

    Sheri and I had a long discussion on this topic this morning. Btw, I perused the Johns Hopkins study, which wasn't a lot of help because it's VERY difficult reading.

    Anyhow, most of our discussion took the form of a debate on what is meant by "mortality rate". In sum, I disagree with her interpretation of that term. From what I've read, the COVID mortality rate is simply the number of COVID deaths per population. For example, if 10,000 people died of COVID in a state of 10,000,000 residents, the COVID mortality rate for that state would be 10,000 divided by 10,000,000 which would be 1/1,000 or .001 or .1%. I argued that what she described was the "case fatality rate".

    As for the effectiveness of the so-called lockdowns, I've been critical since the first state "lockdown", which I think was in California, not because I oppose the concept of a lockdown, but because the lockdowns that were implemented in California and many other states and countries, as well as other countries in my estimation aren't lockdowns in the true sense of the term.

    For example, California's lockdown exempted an incredibly long list of industries which were deemed "essential", which included sign and banner companies and third party companies that merchandise non-essential items in grocery stores, both examples of which resulted in Sheri and I being required to work through the lockdown periods. So in my estimation, it wasn't a bonafide lockdown.

    To me, a true lockdown was like the ones that were imposed in the city of Wuhan in China where everyone except the military was ordered to stay at home 24/7 except for emergencies. During lockdown periods there, armed military personnel patrolled the streets as part of an intense effort to make sure that no one disobeyed the lockdown order.

    Although COVID statistics from China tend to be sketchy and unreliable, it seems logical that a lockdown of that order would have been more successful in preventing COVID cases and deaths than the comparatively weak lockdowns that were imposed in other parts of the world, not only because so many industries and therefore workers were exempt from those orders, but even workers who were ordered to stay home still exposed themselves to the virus when they took part in non-work related activities like grocery shopping and attending gatherings with friends and family.

    Getting back to the Johns Hopkins study, which concludes that lockdowns decreased COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, that still equates to thousands of lives. Considering the severe negative economic impact of the lockdowns and the increase of suicides, though, it's arguable whether or not the lockdowns produced a net beneficial effect.

  10. by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2022 4:44 am


    Welcome back, if only temporarily.

    Your comment is thoughtful and well composed.

    For reasons you describe, there were no lockdowns here. At the supermarket where I worked, all employees were deemed essential and required to show up for work and, if anything, the number of customers increased. Incidentally, few of my coworkers contracted COVID-19.

    One thing the lockdowns accomplished is to have unleashed hidden truths that distinguish progressives and others. Blue state Dems, as is true here in Pennsylvania, were ingenious and enthusiastic in restricting freedom in the sincere conviction that restricting freedom was in the best interest of us all whereas red staters kept screaming that we should let freedom ring.

    To your remarks about the lockdown in Wuhan, even our bluest Dems wouldn't...couldn't...impose so great a crushing of individual liberty.

  11. by Ponderer on February 5, 2022 10:59 am
    Thank you, Bill.

    The New York Times publishes a daily report free of charge called "The Morning" that I receive at my email address. Friday's edition featured the following report which supports my contention that while the weak lockdowns governments around the world imposed in their efforts to contain the spread of COVID had little effect achieving that, the extremely strict lockdowns China has been imposing throughout the pandemic have been tremendously successful containing the spread of COVID.

    Because "The Morning" is free, I'm presenting Friday's edition in its entirety:

    Good morning. China’s zero-Covid policy has kept deaths very low. Can it continue?

    Chinese exceptionalism

    World leaders are increasingly deciding that their countries need to figure out how to live with Covid-19 rather than minimize the number of cases.

    Britain, France, Denmark, Turkey and other parts of Europe have loosened restrictions. Australia has dropped mask mandates and reopened its border. South Africa has lifted curfews and required schools to open fully.

    China is doing none of this.

    As the Beijing Olympics begin, China continues to pursue a “zero Covid” policy. The Olympics will have few fans. As it has for almost two years, China responds to new outbreaks by imposing strict lockdowns. In the northwestern city of Lanzhou last year, officials told roughly four million people to stay home in response to fewer than 50 known cases.

    China’s strategy has had both major successes (holding deaths to low levels) and major costs (disrupting daily life even more than in other countries). It makes for a fascinating case study at a time when Americans disagree vehemently — and often along partisan lines — about whether to maintain Covid precautions or return to normal.

    China’s strategy would obviously not be possible in a country that emphasizes individual rights as much as the U.S. does. But China’s strategy does show what a society can do when it makes the prevention of Covid its No. 1 priority, almost regardless of the side effects.

    A question that experts are asking now is whether China’s strategy is sustainable, given the contagiousness of Omicron. For now, China’s leaders are sticking with it.

    The benefits

    Data coming out of China can be suspect, and local officials apparently undercounted Covid cases early in the pandemic to hide the scale of the outbreak. But most experts believe the country’s official Covid counts have been at least close to accurate for most of the past two years.

    That’s partly because big outbreaks are hard to cover up, and partly because China’s leadership has threatened to punish officials who hide cases. As Amy Qin, a Times correspondent who covers China, told us, “Local officials have every incentive to find the infections and stop the spread before they get out of hand.”

    Even if China’s official numbers are artificially low, its true Covid death toll is almost certainly much lower than that of the U.S., Europe or many other countries. Consider how enormous the official gap is:

    [See graph at bottom]

    The zero-Covid policy has also allowed some forms of normalcy to return. Masks are required in public, but unless a city is in lockdown, people have been attending parties and eating in restaurants for most of the past two years, Amy notes.

    When Covid began spreading in Wuhan, it seemed as if it might have the potential to weaken the Communist Party’s standing. Instead, China’s success at controlling Covid has turned into a public relations triumph for the regime. President Xi Jinping uses China’s management of the virus to bolster his global campaign for influence, arguing that China’s system of government works better than Western democracies do.

    The downsides

    China’s maximalist approach has had harmful side effects.

    Even modest outbreaks can lead local officials to place millions of people under lockdown, sometimes with terrible consequences. As our colleague Li Yuan has written:

    In the northwestern city of Xi’an, hospital employees refused to admit a man suffering from chest pains because he lived in a medium-risk district. He died of a heart attack.

    They informed a woman who was eight months pregnant and bleeding that her Covid test wasn’t valid. She lost her baby.

    Two community security guards told a young man they didn’t care that he’d had nothing to eat after catching him out during the lockdown. They beat him up.

    Lockdowns have also hurt Chinese businesses and the global economy. One reason that inflation has risen around the world is that Chinese factories and ports have been quick to shut down when there are nearby cases, disrupting supply chains.

    Chinese officials maintain that zero Covid is still viable. If that’s correct, the approach may need to become even more aggressive, given that the Omicron variant is so contagious. China’s two major vaccines appear to provide significant protection against serious illness but little protection against infection.

    China also has little natural immunity, unlike countries where the virus has spread widely. “That immunity gap between China and the outside world is only increasing,” Yanzhong Huang, a global health expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told us. Some other countries that previously had zero-Covid strategies, like Singapore and New Zealand, have recently moved away from them.

    China seems to face a choice “between short-term pain and long-term pain,” Huang said. Maintaining zero Covid would probably require long-lasting social and economic disruptions; giving it up would invite a rapid surge of infections. “But after that you could be in much better shape,” Huang said.

    It does seem possible that China will start to shift its approach after the Olympics, perhaps experimenting with fewer restrictions in some cities and regions. Already, some Chinese health officials have subtly altered their message. “They are emphasizing more now the idea of responding rapidly and nimbly to small outbreaks to get as close to zero as possible,” Amy says.

    One factor may be a growing fatigue among Chinese people. While the zero-Covid strategy seems still to have widespread support, some Chinese citizens seem to be growing more frustrated with strict lockdowns. “We are definitely seeing more grumbling from people,” Amy said. “There is a growing sense that you could get caught in a lockdown at any time.”

  12. by Donna on February 5, 2022 11:01 am
    Oops!Forgot to log Ponderer off.

Go To Top

Comment on: "Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact | Advertise on | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
Report spam & abuse home page