Because he/she stated it as a personal opinion while the other person said it as a matter of fact that couldn't be questioned.

I'll go a step further and actually suggest that authoritarian lockdown measure haven't done as much as they've been touted as doing. This is pretty easy to see by comparing states with less lockdown measures vs. ones that went full economy shutdown. Most of the "open" states aren't any worse off than the ones who went lockdown crazy and in some cases they're actually better off when you look at spread and death.

> Most of the "open" states aren't any worse off than the ones who went lockdown crazy and in some cases they're actually better off when you look at spread and death.

This could also indicate that states where Covid-19 had a bigger impact responded by enacting stronger mitigations. What makes you prefer your interpretation?

>This could also indicate that states where Covid-19 had a bigger impact responded by enacting stronger mitigations. What makes you prefer your interpretation?

You can say that but there's no data that supports this at all.

What states are you comparing? Massachusetts and NYC locked down pretty hard and their post-April numbers look pretty good compared to, say, Texas, Florida, and South Dakota.

All of them, and since the start of this. I don't know where you're getting your data and why you've decided April numbers are a good measure of how states have done overall. Infection rate is less relevant than deaths anyway. If people are getting infected and recovering it's not really an issue.

NYC(not state) tops the charts for deaths per 100k. Notice how low FL is?

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100...

What you can easily notice is that strict lockdown measures don't seem to make any difference at all.

All while the topology in all jurisdictions is so different that it will never be possible to directly compare