Okay, i understand your point of view, and i agree on some points, but this still is not an argument against lockdowns. My opinion is that lockdowns if you can

Okay, i understand your point of view, and i agree on some points, but this still is not an argument against lockdowns. My opinion is that lockdowns if you can't stop the spread should be locals, way more local than a state in the US, and i agree that global lockdowns are bad if you can't completely stop the epidemics. a point for future argumentation: the food situation is okay in western europe (notwithstanding sever cut in animal protein consumption) , troubling in eastern europe (but this is not caused by the lockdown and can be offset by less animal feed), my company is hosting FNSEA/INSERM project doing food previsions so i'm well aware of this. No data on other countries sadly. Also to nitpick: >The impact of the deaths from delayed non-covid-19 medical treatments, mental issues, depression, hunger, economic distress, and so on is going to be enormous. Yes, again, i have family working in hospital at Colmar, my cousin is the SMUR chief and his wife is an addiction doctor so i'm well aware of this, but during the height of the epidemic, almost no care were given to emergencies because they had to focus on patient. Since two weeks ago they can now take care of people suffering addiction, they did not redirect emergency operation to hospitals in Lyon (no free helicopter trips anymore). Also the diminution of road accident was also a really nice side-effect for them. > No doctors that I know or work with personally believe the hype They should have come to Colmar France or Bergame Italy and helped then. The global response is not the best, but really you should talk to doctors in community with 300%+ excess death, their point of view might be a bit different.