sp!ked: There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/22/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-for-these-lockdowns/

Tucker Carlson mentioned this study in his opening commentary last night, which I will post separately. The data set the author used is available upon request via a link in the article, for those of you who may be inclined to validate his findings.

My takeaway? Those who are inclined to “follow the science” in framing public policy for dealing with Covid-19 should be skeptical that science confirms the benefits of social distancing as we are currently practicing it.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

30 thoughts on “sp!ked: There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns”

      1. What are you “just sayin'”? I copied the name of the source from the source itself. Do you have a beef with anything in the article, or are you just in the habit of rejecting content solely on the basis of where it appears?

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Habit of rejecting content”

          You have stated that you don’t need to read the Post or NYT because they are “garbage” so your credibility on sourcing is nil…

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. That’s bull. I have explained my objections to specific WAPO and NYT articles, and have commented that I don’t read them, but never that I don’t “need to read them” because they are “garbage.” In fact, I have posted WAPO content here in the Forum. Get your facts straight.

            Like

          3. RE: “my ‘facts’ are straight and I’d suggest you go back and read your own comments.”

            The burden is on you. There’s a search function on the forum. I challenge you to quote me saying any of the things you accuse me of.

            Like

        3. And I read through your post’s link. Interesting and well versed. However, based on the reputation of spiked.com, as spelled out in Jimmie’s link, I could say there appears to be a preconceived outcome that researcher wanted to arrive at.

          I am not a statistician. I don’t even play one on TV. So for me to try and …”to validate his findings.”, would be an exercise in futility as I do not have the research background to do so.

          It is you who has this belief that only your sources are unbiased when all they do is back up YOUR personal biases. You don’t see that. The rest of us admit to our personal biases, Yet you claim to have none. Such purity.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. RE: “It is you who has this belief that only your sources are unbiased…”

            I don’t believe anything of the sort. In fact, I didn’t offer the Spiked article as unbiased in any way, and I don’t assume that sources I share represent Truth, with a capital “T” in any way. You are simply barking up the wrong tree.

            I shared this item because it interested me, and I thought it would interest others. Moreover, I invite you to comment on the content and stop wasting time commenting on me, personally.

            Like

          2. You don’t pay attention very well. I DID comment on the content.

            I also recommend you take a close look at my avatar for this site. If you look closely you will see exactly what I think of you, your source bias and your outright hatred of the truth. Only your truth matters to you. And you will be called out for it evey time it is necessary (IMO)

            Liked by 1 person

  2. As of 8:30 this morning, 4/23, Sweden’s death rate has increased to 200/million. Not the highest in Europe, but substantially higher that ours at 144/million.

    The author talks about the mortality rate being unknown, which is a function of testing scarcity. He does note that we have a new virus with no known cure or vaccine. Our response was based on what we knew, but also the empirical evidence of overwhelmed healthcare and burial services in large urban areas.

    He does dismiss the idea that the heartland states are not crowded by mentioning Nebraska and Utah as somehow equivalent to the hotspots. Bit of a stretch.

    The majority of Americans urge caution. The “resistors” are a distinct minority egged on by right wing zealots and money, and, of course, encouraged by the president. And even with that, Americans are not lining up to end the lockdowns. I think the scientists are generally believed more than the politicians, particularly the administration. Interestingly, the percentage of Americans, left or right, that agree with Trump’s encouraging the resistors is very small. Maybe that’s why his tune has changed, or at least I haven’t heard of anymore #LIBERATE tweets.

    I guess we’ll see. The virus will go where it wants, and if the red states throw out a welcome mat, I fear it could create a serious issue for them and worse yet for the economy. The virus has been a serious killer for just 6+ weeks. At that we have lost close to 50,000. And now we are discovering similarities between COVID19 and hemorrhagic diseases like Hanta or Ebola which affect clotting rates, either too much or too little.

    IMHO

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “The author talks about the mortality rate being unknown, which is a function of testing scarcity.”

      No, he points out that the true mortality rate is unknown because it is based on a biased sample, specifically the testing of people who are already presumed to be sick. This is a known problem: The “case fatality rate” which everyone talks about is not the same as the real or natural fatality rate, which no one has accurately determined.

      RE: “He does dismiss the idea that the heartland states are not crowded by mentioning Nebraska and Utah as somehow equivalent to the hotspots. Bit of a stretch.”

      Not exactly: “Next, I ran a regression model. For those unfamiliar with academic statistical methods, regression – in this case linear regression – is a computerised mathematical technique that allows researchers to measure the influence of one variable on another with all of the other factors that might be relevant held constant. In this case, the variables for each state included in my model were: population, population density, median income, median age, diversity (measured as the percentage of minorities in a population), and the state’s Covid-19 response strategy (0 = lockdown, 1 = social distancing)…The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer Covid-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states, adjusted for all of the above variables. The answer? No.”

      RE: “The majority of Americans urge caution. The ‘resistors’ are a distinct minority egged on by right wing zealots and money, and, of course, encouraged by the president.”

      Sorry, but you are spouting pure bigotry.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Funny; when you don’t agree with model results you state that “all models are wrong”, when you do agree they are paraded out and defended..

        As to “”resisters” being a “distinct minority” the validated data shows they are (less than 15%), and of course they are egged on by right wing zealots and money, and, obviously encouraged by the president

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

      2. Bigotry! Betsy deVos, among others have supported the AstroTurf protests. She is right wing and her crowd is pretty zealous about their beliefs. Enough to pour millions into right wing agendas.

        Do you deny that?

        The president was encouraging resistance, actually insurrection if the #LIBERATE is any indication. Them’s fighten’ words. “Don’t Tread on Me”, fingers on trigger guard, even Confederate colors, in Michigan no less.

        Do you deny that also?

        Sorry, but your accusation of bigotry is out of line.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

          1. Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was talking about before I was accused of bigotry.

            C’est la vie. Or more colloquially, “Same poop, different day”.

            Liked by 3 people

        3. RE: “Sorry, but your accusation of bigotry is out of line.”

          The accusation may be offensive to your self-assessment, but it is not out of line. Since when did a minority view become inherently or categorically wrong, as you suggest? Since when did it become acceptable to disrespect an opinion based on the stereotype of the “out group” that expresses it? That what your words do:

          “The majority of Americans urge caution. The ‘resistors’ are a distinct minority egged on by right wing zealots and money, and, of course, encouraged by the president.”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. You are wrong. You are making up something I did not say to fit some kind of agenda you feel is more deserving than mine.

            You, sir, are fake news.

            And I take ad hominem attacks seriously.

            Thank you.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @JTR

            Non-sensical word salad of the day?

            Even when your assertions are categorically debunked you continue to argue the point.

            Must be a lonely existence….

            Like

      3. @Roberts

        Would it be bigoted of me to ask why known bigots always seem to accuse others of bigotry. And, as in this case, without any apparent understanding of what “bigotry” means. The statement that triggered this accusation is purely factual and not even pejorative.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  3. @Roberts

    What is it that you find so tasty about bullshit? The headline that you repeated is absolutely false. And obviously so. We do not know a lot about the virus but we do know that it is transmitted from person to person by close contact. It therefore absolutely follows that the number of cases is a function of the amount of person to person contact. From that it follows that a strict lock down slows the spread of the virus.

    Whether saving lives is worth the economic disruption is a different question. The answer to that DOES depend to some degree on the true mortality rate. Too bad, our country is doing a poor job on testing – large random samples are needed. It really seems that our slow testing is the policy of a government that really does not want to know.

    The other day you pontificated about how you choose sources of information based on quality and today you give us Tucker Carlson and Spiked?

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. He chooses sources that feed his own narrative and runs down sources (WAPO, NYT) that don’t. Look up media bubble in the dictionary and you just might see his picture as an example of one who will not come out of it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. RE: “It therefore absolutely follows that the number of cases is a function of the amount of person to person contact. From that it follows that a strict lock down slows the spread of the virus.”

      Wrong. Strict lockdowns can just as conceivably encourage the spread of the virus among those who share indoor spaces with infected or contaminated persons. The specific science to answer that question is lacking, although some epidemiologists have mentioned the possibility (specifically in videos I have shared here in the Forum) that general lockdowns are counterproductive for this very reason.

      RE: “The other day you pontificated about how you choose sources of information based on quality and today you give us Tucker Carlson and Spiked?”

      Do you have a beef with any of the content I have posted today? The author of the Spiked piece seems qualified to do the work he wrote about:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Reilly

      But like I said, he makes his data set available, should you care to validate his findings. I encourage it.

      Like

      Reply

      1. @Roberts

        Do you not understand how lame your “rebuttal” is? Of course being locked in a room with a carrier will likely lead to transmittal. But whether there is a lock down or not, you live with who you live with and if one of you gets it, the others will as well.

        Do I have a beef? I made it clear. The headline is false. Presumably it reflects the finding from whatever data set. assumptions and model that was used. It matters not what credentials someone has, what SHOULD have been learned when a clearly nonsensical result is found is that the model is wrong, the assumptions are not accurate or the data is not representative. This was clearly an agenda driven conclusion. And you do not need to be any sort of expert to know that.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “The headline is false.”

          So you say, but you haven’t shown it to be. I invite you to provide data to support your claim, but I will warn you off the IHME model, since, as already discussed at length in the Forum, we know IHME weighted its calculation of social distancing effects to exaggerate them.

          Like

          Reply

          2. @Roberts

            The scientific argument does not need ANY data once you have established that the disease spreads from person to person contacts. If that is true – and the evidence is that it is true – then it CANNOT be that reducing human contact does not reduce the spread of the disease. End of story unless you are a member of a death cult that does not like scientists telling you what must be done.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment