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.