CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns in

ExpressLane

Verified User
There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.

According to a Johns Hopkins Universitymeta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."

It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.

The 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.

The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
=====================================================

The science does not fit their narrative.
 

bg021721dAPR20210216014504.jpg
 
The DEMOCRAT-run website that promoted pandemic panic

What we are witnessing is not science, but Fascism.

B3-EJ342_DOOMSD_M_20190626151436.jpg






https://covidactnow.org/

Look who was behind their doomsday "tools": CoVidActNow was founded by Max Henderson, Rep Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Igor Kofman, and Zack Rosen. https://covidactnow.org/about


They're still lying, BTW.


Look who "endorsed and validated" their apocalyptic scenarios: https://covidactnow.org/endorsements


Look where they got their scary-looking data: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/26/uk-epidemiologist-radically-lowers-his-predicted-c/ https://www.dailywire.com/news/epid...admits-he-was-wrong-drastically-revises-model https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-we-wait-until-easter-11585239104 https://www.livescience.com/half-the-uk-infected-coronavirus-covid19.html


They made this stunning admission: Public leaders & health officials: The only thing that matters right now is the speed of your response. This model is intended to help make fast decisions, not predict the future.
 
:thumbsup: It is frightening what we are seeing happen in our Government, the media and social media.

yes it is

I grew up wondering how a population could turn to gassing their supposed enemies.

I now live in an age where military veterans can be left to die - as we refuse to allow them kidney transplants - because they do not agree to a vaccine to prevent serious harm from a virus they already survived twice previously

We are like 2 steps from something that is completely impossible to fathom
 
What have Chinese Disease lockdowns taught us about trusting "models"?

Yep these liberal medias have been pushing lock downs and now science has proven them wrong so they just ignore the science.

im-183881



IT WAS ALL GUESSWORK




In February, 2020, models were forecasting more than two million COVID-19 deaths in America and 45 million deaths worldwide.

Now we know that these predictions were wrong by at least a factor of two, possibly much more.

One group of people warned early on that the models were wrong: climate skeptics.

Does the scamdemic tell us that we need to have another debate about the accuracy of climate predictions based on computer models?




https://www.libertynation.com/what-can-coronavirus-teach-us-about-climate-models/
 
yes it is

I grew up wondering how a population could turn to gassing their supposed enemies.

I now live in an age where military veterans can be left to die - as we refuse to allow them kidney transplants - because they do not agree to a vaccine to prevent serious harm from a virus they already survived twice previously

We are like 2 steps from something that is completely impossible to fathom
True
 
There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.

According to a Johns Hopkins Universitymeta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."

It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.

The 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.

The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
=====================================================

The science does not fit their narrative.

We really cant expect anything less from these scumbags. This is who they are. These are the same people that doctored the Joe Rogan video to try and make him look real sick....:laugh: These are the same fucking idiots that Doctored the picture of George Zimmerman to make him look whiter than he is. These people are total and complete criminal morons. Its the reason WHY NOBODY has faith in the main stream media anymore. How bad is it when some guy in his basement on youtube has MORE, no check that, WAY MORE, viewers than the prime time lineup on CNN and MSNBC. FAKE NEWS....nobody wants it anymore. Oh,....and there are many more shoes to drop yet. They are going down and going down hard. I for one will dance on their graves! Me and a whole lotta other people.
 
im-183881



IT WAS ALL GUESSWORK




In February, 2020, models were forecasting more than two million COVID-19 deaths in America and 45 million deaths worldwide.

Now we know that these predictions were wrong by at least a factor of two, possibly much more.

One group of people warned early on that the models were wrong: climate skeptics.

Does the scamdemic tell us that we need to have another debate about the accuracy of climate predictions based on computer models?




https://www.libertynation.com/what-can-coronavirus-teach-us-about-climate-models/
Good point.
 
Back
Top