|
|
|
|
|
|
by native_samples
1518 days ago
|
|
|
This is yet more tautologies. Science doesn't dictate what's happening but it is meant to predict what's happening. That's the whole point of science. In this case the fake pseudo-scientists that claim to understand disease spread predict that lockdown will reduce disease spread but it doesn't. They can't explain why lockdowns don't work, which makes it not science. As for your belief that 9/10 worked - please. Please! This is a tiger-protecting rock fallacy. Yes if you wear a rock around your neck, more than 99% of the time you will not be eaten by a tiger. The arguments that lockdowns work are all forms of this type of nonsense when examined. Correlation doesn't imply causation, you need to have very compelling evidence to show causality and "sorta overlaps sometimes, maybe" is not evidence of anything because people epidemics have natural cycles and governments tend to trigger lockdowns as they come up to their peaks. That doesn't mean the peaks are caused by lockdowns and it's the exceptions where they have no effect that prove this. |
|
|
What's your basis for saying that lockdowns don't reduce spread? They do dramatically affect spread - that's been seen in every country. It's almost impossible for them not to affect spread. The virus propagates from person to person, mostly by them breathing the same air. If you reduce contacts between people, you reduce viral spread. This is about as well established as the statement that things fall.