It’s also not even clear whether he’s wrong! We now know COVID19 is far less deadly than we thought, including the fact that it predominately affects those in t

It’s also not even clear whether he’s wrong! We now know COVID19 is far less deadly than we thought, including the fact that it predominately affects those in their 70s and above. But we also know that lockdowns have: • causes cancer patients to miss cancer treatment, with an increase in deaths • caused people to defer medical treatment, including vital “elective” surgery as well as diagnosis of treatable conditions • caused harm to mental health and increase in domestic violence, which has led to suicides, and will lead to more suicides • caused students to get a worse education and abnormal social development; with unknown effects on the rest of their life • caused significant damage to the economy, limiting the economic potential of the future and the kids that are growing up now When we tally up all the damage, and compare it versus Covid deaths of a no-lockdown but ban large events, isolate seniors approach, which one will win? And I might get some flak for saying this, but I don’t believe all lives to be equal. A teenager who kills themselves has lost 70 years of life. A senior in their 90s who died has quite possibility lost 5 or less years of life. If you’re interested in researching this further, I’d encourage you to check out LockdownSkepticsm on reddit. We aren’t against public health measures like universal mask wearing, but we are for evidence-based assessment of what has lower TOTAL damage. And yes, the initial data supporting lockdowns did turn out to be incredibly wrong. We know because we went from estimating 2-3% CFR to 0.4% CFR (CDC, May 2020). And today, we know how effective MASKS are, which public health authorities discouraged during the start...