In order to derive a useful conclusion, an experiment typically needs to have some controls and ways of removing confounders. This article describes several mer

In order to derive a useful conclusion, an experiment typically needs to have some controls and ways of removing confounders. This article describes several merely-nominally-related situations and then bundles them all together to reach a too-neat conclusion. As an example, the article undermines its own argument when discussing China's strict approach. It talks about what happened after lockdowns were lifted as though it meant that the lockdowns themselves were ineffective, and compares that to the US's poorly-adhered-to stay-at-home orders. But if a country is able to keep deaths low until a vaccine is developed, that decreases the total number of deaths. Whether that militates for lockdowns as strict as China's, I seriously doubt. But the article is so intent on making the (clearly false) point that lockdowns were totally useless that it cannot help but fail to grapple in any thoughtful way with the intensity and form of mitigations.