If they were effective, why do graphs show seasonality predominates?
There's yet to be conclusive scientific evidence of the effectiveness of lockdowns.
No where in the 2006 Bush plan does it even mention something akin to lockdown - there's mention of quarantine and isolation under police power but that's about it.
Surely the medical community and govt would have written about something like that beforehand?
> It's pretty embarrassing that China had got the disease beaten, while we're still struggling with COVID-19.
Why are they spending billions as part of their campaign to control narratives through means of propaganda, etc.?
That doesn't follow. Growth prior to the initial lockdowns was expoenential with a doubling rate between 5-7 days. Had this been ineffective we'd have all been sick by now and maybe 50-100M people would be dead worldwide.
Clearly "lockdown" (which is a loaded term people tend to use for anything from stay at home orders to simple mask requirements) worked. The question is how well and to what extent the regimes were followed, and by which populations.
You know this isn't true because practically every local area that suffers an outbreak follows the same curve regardless of how they implement a strategy.
It looks different at larger levels (town, city, state, country, globe) because it's the aggregation of multiple outbreaks.
That's just laughably wrong. Explain how these are the "same curve"?
https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr...
When aggregated at the country level you're looking at many separate outbreaks superimposed, hence the wide curves.
Instead, we decided that this health issue is an ideological struggle of authoritarianism versus liberty, or democrats versus conservative, instead of working together to solve this problem so that we can return to normalcy ASAP.
It's pretty embarrassing that China had got the disease beaten, while we're still struggling with COVID-19.