Evidence is starting to trickle out that a lot of the lock downs may not have been the best move. Like the 66% of New York City people getting covid at home dur

Evidence is starting to trickle out that a lot of the lock downs may not have been the best move. Like the 66% of New York City people getting covid at home during the lock down. The problem is that most of the lock downs weren't actually lock downs. They funneled people into a few big stores (where everyone else was). I don't know if the Norway lock down was similar, but if so, that's not a lock down, that's a great way to spread the disease. This is a problem that I see a lot, people attack the source and say, they are terrible people so they must be wrong. That's not how you win an argument, that's how you get your tribesmen to agree with you, and nobody is better off. If you have some science to back up your claims that they are wrong, great. If you have evidence that the paper is playing fast and loose with the numbers, or taking the numbers out of context, or something else great. Right now they appear to have some data to back their claims, so dismissing them out of hand makes it looks like you are the anti-science person.