Media giants like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and the likes have maintained a complete blackout regarding the new study conducted by Johns Hopkins university claiming that the lockdown to prevent Covid-19 spread was completely ineffective.
According to Johns Hopkins university’s meta-analysis for several studies, it was revealed that the lockdowns which were conducted across the globe while the world witnessed the first wave of the pandemic, helped in reducing the mortality rate by only 2%.
“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.”
The interesting aspect is that median giants such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and NBC have all agreed to ignore the facts and figures revealing that anti-lockdown measurements were seemingly meaningless.
The five most liberal media giants have raised no concerns and are under the knives of critics as they come out as “super spreaders.”
Apart from the media giants, there are other news outlets and networks that have chosen to avoid the study. Some of the big names are the Washington Post, the New York Times, Reuters, The Associated Press, USA Today, and Politico.
These are a few major outlets that chose to pay no heed to the study recommendations.
The Johns Hopkins university’s study team consisted of economics professor Steve Hanke and political studies professor Jonas Herby. They all analyzed the effects of the strict lockdowns across the globe which resulted in business closures, shutting down of educational institutes, and mask mandates.
“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 suggested that the close gatherings in limited attendance might have increased the mortality because of Covid-19.
“[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness,” the researchers wrote.
“But often, lockdowns have limited people’s access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places.” These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best,” the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. “Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”