not a single study had ever been undertaken to measure their efficacy in stopping a pandemic. When you got right down to it, lockdowns were little more than a giant experiment.

The "there is no evidence" => "this is not true" is rapidly becoming one of my most rage-inducing things science writers use to mislead the public, and it is everywhere

In addition, he felt that the worst thing officials could do was overreact, which could create a panic.

lol, not even close. The worst thing they could do is lie about the virus' non-existence, convince people to take dewormers instead of vaccines, and demonize masks so severely people won't even wear them to filter smoke from forest fires.

That's as far as I could get. We don't have enough emotes (which is saying a lot) to carry on

:principle-skinner: Could it be that the united states has little-to-no capacity to coordinate efforts outside the context of war-fever? No, it must be the lockdowns that are ineffective.

we could have avoided lockdowns if everyone wore n95 masks.

But they told us it wasn't airborne and masks wouldn't help at the start. Mainly because they were worried about liability issues.

They simply couldn't imagine a world where covid was contained.

paywall