[pflanze]

> Believe it or not, places outside the US did do a 'real lockdown' for a lot longer than a month, and it didn't 'solve' covid.

If other countries harbour the virus then that won't eradicate it (and the countries with lockdowns will re-import it at some point).

As I indicated to dfbsdfbwe2ef2e, I think at this point in history it's really more interesting to get precise data, modelling. Not just to understand what could or could not have been done in the case of COVID-19, but also for the future, the next pandemic (or OK, even still COVID-19, if you're worried about the renewed rise), so that people will have a better foundation to discuss what the best path forward is.

Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point.

[EricE]

This virus can also live in and be transmitted by animals.

You going to lock down all the wild animals in the environment too?

Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China - voluntarily kneecapped our economies after falling for the political theater they put on for us welding apartments shut and all that. I find it fascinating that so few still seem to ignore that they shut down internal travel but still allowed travel outside their country. Nothing suspicious in that at all.

[pflanze]

> Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China

"Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point."

I mean, maybe there was an effect as you say, and then just maybe that was done by them on purpose, but then the interesting bit would be to prove the hypothesis as well as you can. It would be better if even you at least said "I find this suspicious", over leaving it to the reader to feel like he has to agree or something. This kind of talking is heating up a discussion, for what benefit?