Weird Granny Slater wrote:Well, merely 'calling for the lockdown' wouldn't have had any effect on the 'spread' at all. Physical distancing 'might have possibly' had an effect, but 'might have possibly' isn't very conclusive is it? But if it were so, that rather buttresses the argument that, as infections were already falling, 'lockdown' was redundant as a public health excuse.
But, really, it's for the government (or any 'lockdown' advocate who wishes to take up the challenge) to produce the evidence to prove that 'lockdowns' work (and to define what to 'work' would mean). It has never done so, but merely repeated the assertion that they do often enough that most people are shocked that anyone should actually question the orthodoxy.
Yes, they happened to be calling for a lockdown is indeed superfluous.
I would like to see the same evidence, without a control group of not locking down though I suspect that would be impossible. I would equally like to see the contrary evidence.