[lesuorac]

> Not only did lockdowns fail

That's the exact opposite conclusion the article finds while taking into account more countries and just one.

If you have to search out a single country out of over a hundred to find supporting data you probably are just p-hacking .... Like go to the store and buy identical pens but of 100 different colors. Now throw them down the stairs and record which goes the farthest. Now repeat it again. Do this enough times and you'll find a pen with p<0.05 that goes the farthest. That pen isn't actually superior, you're just doing garbage analysis.

> I sincerely hope that the responsible people will face justice that is just as harsh as the lockdown enforcement was

I'm sure they're be so upset to get free money per month while not having to work.

[michael_j_ward]

Sweden was the well publicized "control group."

It was not selected post-hoc, it was selected in 2020.

The result was more death early and less death later, while suffering no learning loss or adverse effects on the children and little loss in quality of life.

Here's an article from 2020 disparaging the high costs [0].

If you find any major news giving an update now that Finland and Norway have caught up in excess death, please share.

[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/it-s-been-so-so-surr...

[pacerwpg]

Of note, the 'more death early and less death later' resulted in significantly more death overall. It wasn't a wash.

[michael_j_ward]

Yes- there is a life-year cost to bringing death forward.

But there has now been no excess mortality in Sweden compared to it's neighbors Finland and Norway (and all 3 blow the US and Europe out of the water.)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-...

[cas14655]

> If you have to search out a single country out of over a hundred to find supporting data you probably are just p-hacking

You are not considering how positivism works. If you say lockdowns work you have to prove that in all instances. I just need one (1) counter example to disprove your theory completely.

> Do this enough times and you'll find a pen with p<0.05 that goes the farthest.

Cherry-picking. Yeah, that's what focusing on Australia and NZ while ignoring Peru and Sweden is, exactly.

Finding two patients who got better after blood-letting is not enough to prove blood-letting works. Your theory has to fit all the available quality data (so no China or model "data" allowed).

> I'm sure they're be so upset to get free money per month while not having to work.

Yeah that was the extend of lockdowns. Go tell that to the people that where locked up without visitors in nursing homes for months on end.

[1MachineElf]

Don't ignore the conclusion bullet point and analysis towards the end of the article which stated in multiple ways that lockdowns fail the cost-benefit analysis.