We'll start here:
I remember when we were labeled as "wreckless" for demanding an end to Gov. Wolf's lockdown measures in Spring 2020. The harm done to businesses, children's education, and to overall mental health were far greater than the "benefits" of the lockdown. https://t.co/u14Qy0gZrS
— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) February 2, 2022
I don't think the senator (or anyone else for that matter) was labeled as "wreckless" in this regard.
"Reckless" perhaps (because that's the correct spelling) but probably not "wreckless."
Cheap shot, I know. But hey. I'm not running for governor of Pennsylvania and I'm not the guy putting people's health at risk by pushing them away from getting vaccinated.
But let's look at that study, shall we?
In the 10 days since State Senator Mastriano's tweet, it's been factchecked a
nonzero number of times:
Snopes:
The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.
In a Feb. 4 thread on Twitter, Meyerowitz-Katz dug into the details of this study and found, among other things, that this paper was not peer-reviewed, that the analysis excluded all studies with a counter-factual model — thereby excluding nearly all epidemiological-focused papers — and that it heavily weighted studies that supported their conclusion.
But the study is not definitive. The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" by three economists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. The institution did not endorse the study.
"The university hasn’t taken a position on this and typically wouldn’t in such a situation," university spokesperson Jill Rosen wrote in an email.
"The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in an emailed statement. "To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies. The working paper did not include new data, and serious questions have already been raised about its methodology."
Considering these very valid critiques Senator, will you be informing your constituents of the flaws that these scientists have found in the study you used to support your anti-mask position?
That would be the responsible thing to do, right? To fully inform your constituents about this very important public health issue?
So, probably not.
