The prolific blogger Scott Alexander has written a
long post about lockdowns. It's not
too objectionable from a lockdown sceptic's point of view. For example, he concedes that "lockdowns weren't necessary to prevent uncontrolled spread" and says that it's "harder to justify strict lockdowns in terms of the non-economic suffering produced".
Nonetheless, I do disagree with him on several points, which I will highlight here.
First, he ignores most of the academic studies that have found little or no effect of lockdowns on mortality. For example, he doesn't mention Simon Wood's
studies finding that infections were in decline before all three U.K. lockdowns. Nor does he mention the
paper by Christopher Berry and colleagues which observed "no detectable health benefits" of shelter-in-place orders in the United States.
Despite ignoring these studies, he dedicates a whole section of his post to something called
CoronaGame, which he oddly classifies as "Actual Evidence".
Comment: Dems want new voters to be permanently locked into the system and that means citizenship. Who cares what it costs or from whose pocket the price is paid.
See also: