Originally Posted by
fransknorge
Always need to do research, it is the cornerstone of the scientific method. The research needs to be good though.
Question: do you consider that closing nightclubs and only nightclub is exactly the same measure and 100% comparable to have a mandated stay at home for everybody but essential jobs ?
It is not that quick, I read this study last week.
No I personally wouldn't but equally I don't think the article says all measures which fall under the way they choose to define were ineffective. They go on to breakdown between specific measures within the broader usage they have applied to the term. The article isn't suggesting all restrictions were ineffective.
Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality.
In a sense the use of the term in the newspaper article is closer to how I would use it, so relating to restrictions on freedom of movement and/or mandated stay at home.
Do I get a question back?
Let me ask you, are you open to the possibility that some of the restrictions that have been imposed at various points over the last 2 years had very little or even no effect in improving health outcomes whilst at the same time causing damage in other ways to peoples lives and livelihoods?