@champagnois didn't make a reference to "the US", you did. Other countries have tried lockdowns and mandates. Off the top of my head, Australia would be a grea

@champagnois didn't make a reference to "the US", you did. Other countries have tried lockdowns and mandates. Off the top of my head, Australia would be a great data source; They have tried territory-wide lockdowns, mandates, and even involuntary removal to quarantine facilities. Don't know what the outcomes would be in regard to cases and deaths per capita adjusted for comorbidity prevalence, etc. but it would be worth digging into. Unfortunately many of the related articles and studies I've found present and defend conclusions with such vigor that there is no room for necessary discussion; they seem more focused on supporting one preordained conclusion or another. That having been said, I've seen equally qualified and credentialed researchers land on either side, providing good arguments for and against all that's mentioned above. The science many want me to "believe in", often turns out to be political "science", not the process of science. Editing to add: I believe that "believe in the science", for most that repeat this phrase, actually means "believe in the outcome I support". Edit again: Ugh. I was just asked "so what's your point?". So: @champagnois hasn't supported his statement, and neither have you. I was trying to say why not take the data that should exist for, say, Australia, and take a step closer to actually finding out if lockdowns, masking, mandates had statistically significant effects on mortality and morbidity? For extra credit, try to include concomitant adverse events occurring as a result of these measures? (The AE count would be a SWAG, but you could at least get an idea for the magnitude).