A new pro-lockdown study has been doing the rounds on social media. In a Twitter thread, one of the authors claims that it “confirms the tragic consequences of delaying the UK’s first lockdown”. He argues that, if lockdown had started just one week earlier, there would have been up to “35k fewer deaths”.
Although the thread went viral (as many pro-lockdown threads do), the study was not without its critics. One of these was Philippe Lemoine, whose work I’ve discussed several times here on the Daily Sceptic.
In a Twitter thread of his own, Lemoine retorted that the study “doesn’t confirm jackshit” and merely exemplifies the “ridiculous methods that pass as counterfactual analysis in the field of epidemiology”. He went on to say that drawing strong conclusions about the “tragic consequences” of delaying lockdown is “intellectually dishonest”.
Profanity aside, the criticisms Lemoine proceeds to outline are well taken. As he points out, the latest pro-lockdown study is based – yet again – on the assumption that epidemics keep growing exponentially unless the government decides to do something. This assumption is not merely questionable, but false.
We know from examples like South Dakota – whose libertarian governor Kristi Noem did basically nothing – that infections start falling long before the herd immunity threshold is reached, even if there’s no lockdown. (There are at least eight other places where infections fell from a peak in the absence of both business closures and stay-at-home orders.)
Armed with the assumption that the only thing capable of arresting epidemic growth is lockdown, the authors conclude that Britain’s first lockdown had a large effect – one that would have been even larger if it had been imposed a week earlier.
Of course, there’s ample evidence to suggest this isn’t true: infections peaked around the same time in no-lockdown Sweden; reconstructions of Britain’s epidemic curve show cases peaking before the first lockdown; and Chris Whitty himself told MPs that “R went below one well before, or to some extent before, March 23”.
So, another pro-lockdown modelling study based on assumptions that we know are wrong. (Note: I’m not saying the lockdown had absolutely no effect; just that you can’t claim it had a large effect.) However, the story doesn’t end there.
The author of the original Twitter thread didn’t take kindly to Lemoine’s criticisms. After demanding to know “who specifically” Lemoine was accusing of intellectual dishonesty, he asked him to remove the “libellous” tweet and “desist from further public defamation”.
While Lemoine (a Frenchman) could have perhaps been politer, resorting to accusations of “libel” when faced with criticism isn’t a ‘good look’ for a scientist. It suggests you’re more concerned with social status than with finding out the truth. Why not just ignore the Twitter digs, and answer the man’s criticisms?
While this little dispute hardly matters, it doesn’t show ‘The Science’ of lockdown in a very favourable light.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“If this were a normal drug, it would be taken off the market.”
Exactly this. And here is the reason why it never will be;
“Because the mRNA vaccines fall under the PREP Act definition of “emergency countermeasures,” their production is not subjected to the same testing and quality control regulations as licensed pharmaceutical products. Their production and deployment resemble that of military products during World War II.
The legal framework for this bonanza was established by the PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) of 2005. This authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deploy a wide array of “Emergency Countermeasures” in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. When invoked by the HHS Secretary, the PREP Act provides immunity for the “manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of covered countermeasures.” On February 4, 2020, HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared COVID-19 an emergency and invoked the PREP Act.”
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/of-central-bankers-and-hhs-secretaries
Quality commentary such as this is worth a DS sub. by any measure.
Thanks Mogs.
Only a bit of fun Mogs. I know it’s over the top but the sentiment is genuine.
The hilarious dichotomy between Reps and Dems reg. its efficiency is a strong indication that we are basically just dispensing and dealing with a (toxic) placebo.
Worth noting that Republicans and Independents track reasonably well, it’s the Democrats that are the clear outliers.
Exactly. And one of the main reasons they will never take these death shots off the market is because now the floodgates have opened for other traditional vaccines to be changed over to an mRNA platform, as they can manufacture and get them to market way quicker, therefore proving to be more lucrative to Big Pharma. So if they removed the Covid jabs due to the major safety issues then this would be an admission that all future mRNA products are also unsafe. Sort of puts the kibosh on the whole thing really, especially the depopulation plan, which appears to be going swimmingly doesn’t it?
The mRNA system, now authorised is effectively a licence to kill.
007!
Government agencies are all-in on the mRNA clot shots, they wont change.
What is interesting is that here we have a major polling company openly admitting that they cannot publish the results of their own poll in full because they will face censorship. This is astonishing. The land of the free? Not so much.
“A 7% major side effect rate is unprecedented. We know from the V-safe data that this effectively means that the side-effect was so bad, they had to seek medical attention. If any drug had that kind of safety profile, it would be immediately pulled from the market. Would you take any drug with that kind of side-effect profile? Of course not. It’s off the charts! However, because we are told it is a safe and effective vaccine, people do what they are told despite the lack of safety. That’s how science works.” (My emphasis)
Note that the schools that did not properly teach logic and independent, critical thinking are also culpable in this shambles that has resulted in so many deaths and injuries. If they had, it would have been much harder for the corrupt drugs companies and their collaborators to pull this off.
Shocking, not shocked.
Many of use including myself, predicted this disaster. That is why we are unstabbinated.
41% minor and major injury. 150K dead in the US, I am guessing 50 K dead from the stabs in the UK.
Against what? 0.03% IFR….the same as the flu, average age of death 84. Not so with the stabbed dead and injured. Average age is in the 50s.
And yet Tards still want to play Rona. Diapers, more Quacksines, more LDs.
A friend’s husband (2 x AZ, 1 x Pfizer) had a major heart attack 3 weeks after the Pfizer booster and has now had another 5 months later 48 hours after having the ‘flu jab.
My friend says his brother is an NHS Consultant in A & E and they are seeing a lot of heart attack and myocarditis patients. So the NHS knows there is a serious problem ….. and they know why.
She has – finally – said they will not be having any more jabs.
“That’s how science works” is a bit pejorative, at least to those who actually have a proper understanding of the term. Something like “That’s how political abuse of science works”, or just “that’s how politics works” might be more accurate.
That said, there is no doubt that most products that had such bad results in reality would be withdrawn from the market, along with a serious risk of prosecution for many of those concerned.
This is poor science. The effectiveness and safety of vaccines can only be determined by Randomised Control Trials before they are approved. The trials were obviously inadequate and proved nothing. This is the message that needs to be repeated and those responsible need to he jailed. Because of the lockdowns and failure of health services it is difficult to determine what is causing the claimed increase in deaths and other issues. A survey of 1000 people is not reliable.
Agreed but surely it gives you a big red flag. Also when I did a Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) course admittedly many moons ago we were told anything over 30 is a large sample.
Wow, just lovely. If the jab commercials were honest: “May cause fever, chills, blood clot, stroke, heart attack, sudden death….and runny nose”