Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "BOMBSHELL! Lockdowns Reduced Deaths By ONLY 0.2%-Says New Study" video.

  1.  rs_  How did you get this shabby cut-and-paste through?
    4
  2.  rs_  Of course it's a meta-analysis, and these are quantitative economists, not doctors. I don't see your point about that particular study.
    3
  3.  rs_  I'm looking at it now. It has 61 pages, so I haven't read it yet, but I already see that it classifies a "lockdown" by three different standards of severity, and considers them separately. It does not classify mask wearing as being in the same group as business closures.
    2
  4.  @mikerollin4073  Say. I have an idea. Download the actual study and take a look. Do you believe anyone here has already combed through this analysis? I see they haven't.
    2
  5.  @mikerollin4073  A good argument has to be sound. He's not overtly playing on emotions or pretending facts are about feewings, that is straight-up true.
    2
  6.  rs_  Neither am I. I believe we need a free flow of information from disinterested actors with humility. You still see personal attacks over reported adverse events from vaccines, yet when a Senator politely (for a change) asked the head of the CDC for the numbers, she could not provide them. Nor do we know how the vaccines our "enemies" have developed, with no patent walls, have been working out. I still don't know whether Japan's exceptional success is real, and if so, how did they do it? It's 2022. I expected better.
    2
  7.  rs_  I don't see why that study you cite in particular should have been excluded from those qualifying to enter the meta-analysis pool. I do see the point that this type of meta-analysis runs a serious risk of cherry-picking. This type of study does not use random sampling, it uses selection criteria to choose studies that are supposed to be scientifically sound, and meet uniform criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Meta-analysis generally has this problem, especially when social policy interventions are being analyzed. A meta-analysis of studies that are double blind, and randomly assign participants to those receiving the medication being investigated, and those receiving a placebo, are a lot more solid. Vastly. Okay? Or something else is at issue?
    1
  8.  rs_  Studies that looked at mask wearing and also looked at "lockdown" type mitigation were included; purely mask wearing studies were not. The major criticism of your OP was cherry-picking. I agree that is always a problem. The accusation that these guys started with the conclusion they wanted, then looked for studies to massage, could be true (no kidding), but it was asserted mainly based on an appeal to authority. Who and where did one of them say the lockdown measures were "fascist?"
    1
  9.  rs_  I understood that "only mask wearing" was excluded. But let's try a different tack: do I believe Jimmy read this whole study, or read more of it than you did? I don't know, of course, but I think not.
    1
  10.  rs_  Found his account, he is hyper-political. The only place I saw him use the term "fascist" was in reference to laws that make it a crime to decline vaccination, which he claims Austria is contemplating. (I tend to agree with that.) Most of his tweets are wildly juvenile, he has a Venezuela obsession, etc. Inflation is purely a money supply phenomenon (groan), etc. LOL
    1
  11.  rs_  I found his reference to Italy, for introducing fines for not being vaccinated, thus making it a misdemeanor/minor infraction. Did you see where he said lockdowns alone are fascist? Some of the tactics being used, such as where police beat or teargassed anti-mandate protesters, were ridiculous, and yeah, I see a tinge of fascism in that. The fever pitch hysteria over any questions about these top-down directives, and hyperbole from people like McCullough, who has a few ostensibly good points to make, really angered me. There are no "sides" in honest, empirical investigation. Reminds me of Adam Curtis documentaries, where he shows the false flags to be false flags. Or are they? Yeesh.
    1