And it's interesting how certain media outlets, specifically The NY Times and Washington Post have promoted this extreme view of lockdowns -- they seem to be fa

And it's interesting how certain media outlets, specifically The NY Times and Washington Post have promoted this extreme view of lockdowns -- they seem to be fanning the flames even in light of scientific opinions that cast some doubt on their original editorial assertions. This article[0] encapsulates my feelings pretty well and how there seems to be a vested interest in some of the various players into prolonging and magnifying this situation. The money quote: "Perhaps all of these terrible consequences could be justified if lockdowns were preventing the mass coronavirus deaths that Neil Ferguson predicted in March, using the now-debunked Imperial Model. Indeed, it was this model that prompted many Western politicians to panic. Programmers who later examined the code deemed it “totally unreliable,” a “buggy mess,” and found that it could not be replicated and that it yielded wildly inaccurate results. Why governments relied upon Mr. Ferguson’s model to enact such extreme policies, given that his disease modeling had been grossly exaggerated many times in the past, is a topic for another day. Not only were the lockdowns premised on bad science but, contrary to the premature declarations of publications such as the New York Times and politicians like Governor Cuomo, suppressive measures do not work. In fact, the Lancet recently published a study in which the authors concluded that “rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.[1]" She's referring to the Lancet, not a Fox News opinion piece. And another key quote: "Many epidemiologists have observed that the virus follows the same trajectory nearly everywhere, regardless of government restrictions: it climbs, plateaus, and then retreats within about six to ten weeks." And the suppression of the Sunetra Gupta research is also telling.[2] Important context: "She rejected being bracketed with libertarian lockdown skeptics, saying her opposition came from the left. 'I personally think that only thinking along the lines of eliminating coronavirus, without giving heed to the consequences on the disadvantaged young and globally, is a dereliction of our duties as global citizens'." Life could get back to normal(er) but there's too much inertia resisting such a radical idea. And there seems to be some sick subset of people that actually like this current state of affairs. I'm willing to bet that if this weren't a US election year, massive lockdowns and outright media-fueled hysteria wouldn't have happened. To be clear, I'm not saying the virus wasn't a big deal, but the actual data reveals a much different reality than the one advertised. [0] https://www.aier.org/article/whats-gone-wrong-with-left-liberalism-and-lockdowns/ https://www.aier.org/article/whats-gone-wrong-with-left-libe... [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... [2] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-let-children-be-exposed-to-viruses-says-professor-gupta-a4538386.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner...