Talk about cherry-picking:
I accept that ‘proving’ beyond doubt that lockdowns have been ineffective isn’t easy and we’ll probably still be arguing about it in 50 years. But the preponderance of evidence certainly points that way. I’m not just thinking of the low death tolls in countries that didn’t issue stay-at-home orders such as Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Belarus — and, yes, even Sweden compared to some other European countries.
So let's see, two island nations and a city-state where people readily comply with mask-wearing and other safe behavior, plus Europe's last dictatorship where nobody goes in or out of (a slight exaggeration, and I was actually planning a trip there this year or next).
Otherwise the reason death rates tend to be somewhat high in severe lockdown countries is that countries usually do severe lockdowns only after they have large outbreaks. Italy, Spain, Iran, China, etc. And notice that some places that did little such as Brasil and Turkey are moving up the case and death lists.
Kind of amazing to hear someone assert that lockdowns haven't saved lives. Shanghai has had around 700 officially confirmed cases. The Hubei lockdown, nearby provincial lockdowns and Shanghai largely voluntary lockdown sure kept things safe, reducing what could have been a huge outbreak, many cases, many deaths, another NYC.
And there was no "imprisonment". Most businesses were told to close except food and drug related and big box stores that sold essentials. But people were free to come and go, buses and subways still ran, not that there was much to go to. And long after the threat has really passed, 90% of people still wear masks. Schools have reopened. Most places except large gatherings have reopened.
100% clear to me that the Hubei and other China lockdowns saved a lot of lives. And kept me safe. I'd hate to see models of what might have happened without them. And likely the rest of the world would have been fucked over badly too.
Poll
5 (45.5%)