> I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. Then look at the data. There's an entire s

> I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. Then look at the data. There's an entire subreddit of all the latest papers and analysis regarding the disease and its spread, and the ineffectiveness of lockdowns has been debunked time and time again, especially now that we have models that have high approximations of the real-time spread of the disease. We have examples from Singapore, Germany, Brazil, and various US states about how easing lockdowns without concern for the necessary sanitary measures has a very measurable impact on new infections and deaths. In the beginning there were no clear exit scenarios. We have multiple governments that have expressed them now, with specific goals and measures that have to be considered to not reignite the spread of the disease. So yes, I consider this propaganda because the basic premise of the article is flawed and is the subject of journalists failing to navigate the current state of research, and its implied motivation of defending premature openings at the cost of an additional tens of thousands of lives.