>Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now.

What?

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003...

>Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied

Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt

So explain why every single population adjusted chart of almost any metric out there looks identical to all the others. You'd be hard pressed to tell which graph is Florida and which is California.

If the only way you can possibly prove lockdowns work is some kind of meta study using fancy statistics and math in order to show any difference, it probably means even if it did work it wasn't worth the cost to society. If lockdowns were effective and worth the social cost I assert any fool off the street should be able to easily see the impact of restrictions. Thus far, that is impossible.

So you disregard the Nature study because being peer reviewed does not imply quality, you disregard the non-peer-reviewed studies because they aren’t peer reviewed and therefore are low quality, and you cite an article about how ‘scientists are baffled’ at data showing lockdown might not have had an effect despite your assertion that there ample scientific studies showing that lockdowns have no effect already and that it is already ‘proven beyond doubt’.

> This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result.

How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.

Yes I guess your position is internally consistent if you consider the doubt you were referring to to be only your own doubt.