Lockdowns do work to prevent the spread of disease though.
Why is the spread less in non locked down scandanavian countries?
Prove it.
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?
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.
>Lockdowns do work to prevent the spread of disease though.
Disease +information
No, they don't. That is a hypothetical by ivory-tower wonks who've never seen any groundwork in reality.
Nope. It’s backed up by the data for every country or state that has imposed lockdowns.
But if more people wore masks, it would reduce the need for lockdowns. Lockdowns are not only inconvenient, but are also economically harmful. Lockdowns should be a last resort.
We don't need masks or lockdowns. Fuck you and
We need less jews.
What?! Masks don't work you dumb fuck. Show me a study that says they do.
The masks confuse the virus as to where your nose is. Especially of you wear 3 or more.
(post is archived)