![]() ![]() USA TODAY reached out to the working paper's other two co-authors, Lars Jonung of Lund University and Jonas Herby of the Center for Political Studies in Denmark, for comment.Įxperts criticize paper as 'fundamentally flawed'įollowing the paper's publication, a number of public health experts issued statements criticizing the authors’ methodology and their broad definition of a lockdown. “The views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institution that the authors are affiliated with," it reads. When asked about the paper, Johns Hopkins spokesperson Jill Rosen pointed to the university’s principles on academic freedom and emphasized the first paragraph of the working paper. ![]() More: 1,430 unvaccinated New York City workers fired, thousands more could follow: Live COVID updates Hanke, the study's lead author, told USA TODAY in an email that he and his co-authors excluded some studies relying on simulations because the meta-analysis "focused on real-world empirical evidence." He said they did not exclude studies "based on their discipline." “To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies.” Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an email. “The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study,” Dr. Watch Video: World Health Organization talks COVID pandemicīut public health and medical experts, including those at Johns Hopkins, have pushed back on those findings. "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 authors wrote in the paper's abstract. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument." only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. Most of them looked at COVID-19 data prior to September 2020, and 12 of the studies are working papers.īased on that analysis, the paper authors concluded pandemic-related lockdowns in Europe and the U.S. The authors analyzed 34 studies on the effects of lockdowns. Hanke, who has previously shared misinformation about COVID-19. The paper was authored by three economists – including Johns Hopkins professor Steven H. It appears on the website for the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins.įollow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks The paper, titled, "A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality, was published in January. “Not only is the paper itself not peer-reviewed, but it is itself a review of other papers, many of which were not peer-reviewed.” “The paper underscores the need for peer review, which hopefully filters out the fluff from the methodologically sound science,” Mark Lurie, an associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, said via email. The report being cited online is a working paper authored by economists – not public health experts or epidemiologists, many of whom have criticized the paper's conclusion. ![]() Paper not peer-reviewed or endorsed by Johns Hopkins USA TODAY reached out to the social media users who shared the post for comment. It's also inaccurate to attribute the report to Johns Hopkins, which did not endorse the paper. Other peer-reviewed papers have concluded lockdowns are an effective pandemic countermeasure. Many public health experts have criticized the methodology and conclusions of the paper, which was conducted by economists rather than researchers with more extensive training in the complex dynamics at play in a pandemic. Users who shared the posts described the report as a “Johns Hopkins study," referencing the university known for its medical research and COVID-19 data.īut this paper is not nearly as authoritative as many discussing it purport, as it was not peer-reviewed and doesn't represent an expert consensus on the subject of lockdowns. Similar versions of the claim made their way to Twitter, Instagram and Reddit. The post accumulated more than 1,700 interactions in a week. 2 Facebook post from filmmaker Ami Horowitz. “According to Johns Hopkins, the lockdowns didn’t help at all,” reads a Feb. Those opposed to pandemic restrictions are promoting a working paper from economists as evidence that COVID-19 lockdowns were not effective in preventing deaths, a narrative that has been popular since the early days of the pandemic. ![]() Watch Video: Long-term COVID-19 The claim: A ‘Johns Hopkins study’ found lockdowns were not effective in preventing COVID-19 deaths ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |