Look at every country or state that has imposed lockdowns and the rate of infection falls during that period.
Look at when the lockdowns are eased and the rate of infection rises.
The problem with that hypothesis is that at some point lockdowns have to be eased, and at that point infections spike anyway. Once a virus enters a community it doesn’t really go away so what purpose is served by trying to avoid infection in the short term if you’re going to get it at some point anyway?
To flatten the curve until the vaccine is ready, resulting in many, many times fewer deaths overall.
Or does testing coincide with lockdowns? How about countries or states that have no lockdowns? Their overall numbers are lower. Plus, is it worth to mental health and economies to lockdown people for an illness with a 99.8 survival rate? Is it reasonable to force people against their will? Do the ends justify the means? You want to save more lives? Remove niggers and jews from society.
Testing has exponentially increased in most places and the cases still match the lockdown timelines. Pick a country from the site above and follow the timeline vs the lockdowns in that country.
exponentially increased
Prove it.
(post is archived)