I agree it's really surprising that they have no effect. Yet that is what the data seems to be telling us, and it's not specific to certain regions. The number

I agree it's really surprising that they have no effect. Yet that is what the data seems to be telling us, and it's not specific to certain regions. The number of places is limited because the number of places that got rid of or didn't implement lockdowns is limited, but the story is consistent between them, including in Sweden where they also use public transport. I believe the fact that this invalidates what was seen as robust theory is one reason (but not the biggest reason) why people are resistant to that conclusion. Yet, that is what the data demands of us. In reality there are lots of ways to patch up germ theory to handle the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. For instance, contact tracing studies claim that almost all infections are spread in homes, care homes and hospitals, i.e. places where sick people have to be. That makes logical sense: you would expect viruses to spread in places where sick people are, and you would expect sick people to be in a bed somewhere because they feel sick. The idea that lockdowns work is strongly predicated on the belief that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people are highly infectious. However there's actually very little evidence of this, and quite a lot of evidence that they're not.