elbows
Well-Known Member
Well in this particular case, having looked into it a little more since I last posted it appears the study itself likely was actually intended to discredit what was done. Because it was written by biased economists and has resulted in quite the backlash from scientists. I'm only going to quote one of them but have linked to the full article. Its fair to say I no longer plan to read the shitty report.
“Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.
“In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.