Did you read the Snopes article? My read was that they were providing useful context for the working (i.e., non-peer reviewed) paper written by economists (not

Did you read the Snopes article? My read was that they were providing useful context for the working (i.e., non-peer reviewed) paper written by economists (not epidemiologist) who are associated with Johns Hopkins that is being thrown around as evidence that "lockdowns" don't work. Since empirical evidence (referenced by the Snopes article) indicates that lockdowns do work, I'd imagine papers to the contrary can be argued to be in the realm of "urban legends", thus fodder for Snopes.