[titzer]

> "won't stop infection" or "stop the pandemic" - 1st this is not black and white

Seriously. Mitigating the damage from failure to contain and eradicate the virus when we had the chance (in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential, but guess what, the same people f'd that up) involves filter after filter after filter. Each filter reduces spread and severity by some amount. Masks reduce (but don't eliminate) transmission. Vaccines reduce (but don't eliminate) infections. Vaccines reduce the length of infection, reducing transmission. Lockdowns and social distancing reduce the spread. On and on. Every single measure is applying a filter that might only be 90% successful. That is no way a logical argument for no filter at all.

These people really don't understand how bad this pandemic would be if we had no mitigation measures at all. The entire hospital system would collapse and millions (more--probably tens of millions) would die. Yet that's what they constantly argue for. Yet forcing people to get a needle in their arm is "draconian".

[ekianjo]

> in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential

We have enough data by now, worldwide, to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective. There is virtually no correlation with viral spread and lockdown status.

[titzer]

> to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective.

You're saying that ineffective, half-hearted lockdowns elsewhere were ineffective? Hold the phone.

Victoria, Australia. South Korea. Wuhan. New Zealand. Singapore.

These lockdowns eradicated the virus locally--for several months at a time; but they are precarious, leaky ships due to the virus spreading everywhere else. An effective worldwide lockdown was exponentially more difficult. But very large countries with the ability to isolate themselves from international travel did do effective lockdowns, so I will not be accepting your narrative above.