JP Morgan study shows lockdowns did not alter course of pandemic

[Logosone]

"Falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted suggest that the virus 'likely has its own dynamics' which are 'unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures', a report published by the financial services giant said."

 

"Author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said governments had been spooked by 'flawed scientific papers' into imposing lockdowns which were 'inefficient or late' and had little effect."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8347635/Lockdowns-failed-alter-course-pandemic-JP-Morgan-study-claims.html

[Langsuan Man]

Really,  I am going to take medical advice paid for by a banker ????

 

Sorry,  but I am not President Trump 

[4MyEgo]

In the end, a lot of leaders heads will roll as voters make up their own minds, we hope.

[Moonlover]

12 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Really,  I am going to take medical advice paid for by a banker ????

 

Sorry,  but I am not President Trump 

There is no advise in the article, medical or otherwise. It's a retrospective opinion.

[pineapple01]

Long as they make a profit they dont give a rats ass about anyone

[chessman]

1 - even the author seems to feel that lockdowns were justified at the start. 
'In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially. Nonetheless, many of these efforts were inefficient or late.'  

2 - studying what happens to the R0 number when a lockdown is lifted is not a good way to judge the effectiveness of a lockdown because people will have changed their behaviour patterns completely. The more interesting question is if governments could have changed those behaviour patterns initially in other ways without such strict measures. 
 

[ChouDoufu]

56 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Really,  I am going to take medical advice paid for by a banker ????

 

Sorry,  but I am not President Trump 

 

what?  you don't visit a "trained physicist" for whatever ails ya?

 

 

for anyone confused, have you never heard the famous quote "physicist, heal thyself"?

 

[talahtnut]

11 minutes ago, pineapple01 said:

Long as they make a profit they dont give a rats ass about anyone

Right on mate, watch the biggest transfer

of wealth on the planet.

Same as the man made 1930 great

depression.

[Moonlover]

7 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

what?  you don't visit a "trained physicist" for whatever ails ya?

As far as I know, when one is sick, one visits a physician. 

[248900_1469958220]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html

[Dumbastheycome]

In essence it is a confirmation that the US  administration moved  too slowly !

[248900_1469958220]

Dr Fauci.....

 

If we open too fast people are going to die....

 

If we leave it too long....people are going to die.......

 

Who would like to also punch that Neil Ferguson? I would like to roll up that paper he printed off, probably at his mistresses place (while cucked hubby looked on longingly)....you know, the one where millions die......and shove it where the sun dont shine! 

[nauseus]

55 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

There is no advise in the article, medical or otherwise. It's a retrospective opinion.

Yes. It's bloody awful.

[Moonlover]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

There is no advise in the article, medical or otherwise. It's a retrospective opinion.

 

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes. It's bloody awful.

Oh is it? ????

[yuyiinthesky]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes. It's bloody awful.

Any report which does not support Lockdowns seems to be "awful" for you? Why is that?

[Logosone]

It is remarkable, isn't it, that all the lockdown fanatics would have you believe that lockdowns were so crucial in controlling the virus, and then it turns out that, well, actually, 'the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates' after lockdowns were lifted'.

 

So lockdowns not so crucial after all then. Despite all the earnest hysteria.

 

 

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It is remarkable, isn't it, that all the lockdown fanatics would have you believe that lockdowns were so crucial in controlling the virus, and then it turns out that, well, actually, 'the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates' after lockdowns were lifted'.

 

So lockdowns not so crucial after all then. Despite all the earnest hysteria.

 

 

It is remarkable, isn't it, you might actually believe the  rubbish you post.

 

Of course the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates after lockdowns were lifted - because of the preceding lockdowns. Duh!

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It is remarkable, isn't it, you might actually believe the  rubbish you post.

 

Of course the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates after lockdowns were lifted - because of the preceding lockdowns. Duh!

You obviously don't understand the concept, if the lockdowns are suddenly lifted and lockdowns were the sole cause of reducing cases then once they are lifted case numbers would have gone up. They didn't. All the evidence points to the fact that lockdowns were therefore not the cause of falling infection rates, obviously it was testing and isolating the infected.

 

Look up the term "causation".

 

[yuyiinthesky]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Of course the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates after lockdowns were lifted - because of the preceding lockdowns. Duh!

And the countries without lockdowns, why did also they have decreased infection rates? According to your logic, they shouldn't - but also they have decreased infection rates.

I don't understand why you are so strongly into lockdowns, fighting against every hint that they might be not needed. Do you just enjoy being locked up, or are there other reasons?

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

Oh is it? ????

Yes

[chessman]

21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You obviously don't understand the concept, if the lockdowns are suddenly lifted and lockdowns were the sole cause of reducing cases then once they are lifted case numbers would have gone up. They didn't.

Absolute nonsense.

The spread is caused by human interaction, lockdowns are a way of changing patterns of interaction. They achieved that goal. The lockdowns lift but people are still cautious and so the patterns of interaction don’t change so much.

 

The really interesting question is if these patterns could have been changed in other ways, without such drastic measures.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

It is remarkable, isn't it, that all the lockdown fanatics would have you believe that lockdowns were so crucial in controlling the virus, and then it turns out that, well, actually, 'the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates' after lockdowns were lifted'.

 

So lockdowns not so crucial after all then. Despite all the earnest hysteria.

 

 

Perhaps Australia and New Zealand haven't registered in your thought bubble.

[tomazbodner]

1. Most prefer to err on the safe side

2. It is easy to be general after the battle

[torturedsole]

14 hours ago, Logosone said:

said governments had been spooked by 'flawed scientific papers'

Reminds me of the climate change nonsense way back in 2019.  Haven't heard a word about climate change for eleven weeks now which is nice.  

[SAINT THOMAS]

Trump: The Invisible Virus.

 

CNN: Trump is trying to do GOD's work.

 

Humans Indoors: Oceans clear, Smog Gone, Animals, Mammals, Birds Everywhere.

 

I suggest Walking, Bicycling, Skate boarding in the Sun.

 

Have kindness and compassion for all creation including Animals, Mammals & Birds.

 

Pick up garbage in the oceans, beaches on land.

 

Donate to Soi Dog Foundation and volunteer if living in Thailand or take one of the Dogs since they are having trouble with shipping overseas.

 

Change to a plant based diet.

[steelepulse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

It is remarkable, isn't it, you might actually believe the  rubbish you post.

 

Of course the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates after lockdowns were lifted - because of the preceding lockdowns. Duh!

Actually, the data shows the virus was on the decline before lockdowns.  

 

But hey, never miss a chance to throw in a comment after the fact.

[White Christmas13]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

It is remarkable, isn't it, that all the lockdown fanatics would have you believe that lockdowns were so crucial in controlling the virus, and then it turns out that, well, actually, 'the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates' after lockdowns were lifted'.

 

So lockdowns not so crucial after all then. Despite all the earnest hysteria.

 

 

Rubbish

[steelepulse]

5 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

Rubbish

Please elaborate on your post as currently just saying "rubbish" only shows your post is rubbish.

[White Christmas13]

5 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

Please elaborate on your post as currently just saying "rubbish" only shows your post is rubbish.

Is that so? I was replying to the OP who said lock downs don't make any different

[steelepulse]

8 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

Is that so? I was replying to the OP who said lock downs don't make any different

Actually your reply was to the below.   Do you still stand behind your ill informed data?

 

 

 

 

It is remarkable, isn't it, that all the lockdown fanatics would have you believe that lockdowns were so crucial in controlling the virus, and then it turns out that, well, actually, 'the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates' after lockdowns were lifted'.

 

So lockdowns not so crucial after all then. Despite all the earnest hysteria.