Scientists quarrel over lockdown: some say it is useless, others blame colleagues for unprofessionalism - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

Scientists quarrel over lockdown: some say it is useless, others blame colleagues for unprofessionalism

A new study by scientists at Johns Hopkins University shows that COVID lockdowns have prevented only a small number of deaths caused by the virus. ABCactionnews.

Photo: Shutterstock

The authors reviewed 24 individual studies and divided them into three groups: studies on the lockdown severity index, studies on self-isolation regimens, and studies on specific non-pharmacological interventions.

An analysis of each of them showed that "lockdowns had little or no effect on mortality from COVID-19."

The numbers show that the lockdown in Europe and the United States reduced the death rate from COVID-19 by only 0,2% on average.

The lockdown rules were not much more effective, as they only reduced deaths by an average of 2,9%.

The researchers found that the lockdown had huge economic and social costs wherever it was applied.

The authors concluded that the lockdown policy is "unreasonable" and suggested that it be abandoned in the event of future pandemics.

On the subject: US recalls deadly candy and soda with pieces of glass

The study was conducted by Jonas Herbie, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke.

Another point of view

The study, which suggests lockdowns are largely ineffective in containing the spread of COVID-19, is drawing public attention and criticism from some medical experts who have spoken out against its findings, reports Miami Herald.

Among the confusion is the study's definition of lockdown.

The authors of the study are all economists, including Steve H. Hanke, who is co-director of the JHU Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and Business Studies.

According to the Science Media Center, among the study's critics is one professor at Imperial College London who said the study has "shortcomings", largely due to how the lockdown is defined and that it requires careful interpretation.

“The authors define a lockdown as the introduction of at least one mandatory non-pharmacological intervention. That would make the mask policy a lockdown, said Sameer Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health. “For a meta-analysis, using a definition that diverges from the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access established as a security measure) is odd.”

Another professor at Imperial College London, Neil Ferguson, noted that lockdown measures vary across countries and said the report "improves our understanding marginally," according to the Science Media Center.

You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants, and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York.

The authors of the study specifically defined the lockdown as a non-pharmaceutical intervention — “any government decree that directly restricts people’s options, such as policies that restrict domestic movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.”

“Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and telling people to stay home (lockdown is the proper definition) reduces disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists, said Dr Seth Flaxman, associate professor of computer science at the University of Oxford. “A study purporting to prove otherwise will almost certainly be fundamentally flawed.”

The professor indicates which part of the studies analyzed in the work are carried out from an economic, and not from an epidemiological point of view. Flaxman also notes that the timing of the lockdown compared to COVID-19 deaths is important.

“Late lockdowns are less effective than earlier ones because many people are already infected,” Flaxman said. “Lockdowns do not immediately save lives because there is a delay from infection to death, so to see the impact of lockdowns on Covid deaths we need to wait about two or three weeks.”

“The duration of an intervention needs to be considered when evaluating its impact,” Ferguson added, according to the Science Media Center.

Read also on ForumDaily:

He avenged the attack on him: an American hacker turned off the Internet in all of North Korea

In the United States recognized 'natural immunity' from COVID-19: it can be equated with vaccination

Listeria outbreak in US: 2 people have already died due to contaminated lettuce

Miscellanea In the U.S. research Covid lockdown
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis. 



 
1088 requests in 1,267 seconds.