HoobaTemp

I assume you want people to take what you're saying seriously, we all do.

It would help if you were to mention why it is "a complete lie", how the positions therein are "unworthy of consideration", have "proven their lack of worth on their face", as well as which signatories are "imaginary people".

I am literally not saying that you are wrong.

I'm saying that making broad statements in the context "everyone knows...", without support, will lose anyone but those willing to endlessly argue with you in the same opinionated context. In other words, instead of a worthwhile discussion, this is the equivalent of standing behind barricades on one side of the street screaming at the people behind the barricades on their side of the street who are screaming at you. Despite well composed sentences above, it has no more value than graffiti. Why bother?

@champagnois didn't make a reference to "the US", you did. Other countries have tried lockdowns and mandates.

Off the top of my head, Australia would be a great data source; They have tried territory-wide lockdowns, mandates, and even involuntary removal to quarantine facilities. Don't know what the outcomes would be in regard to cases and deaths per capita adjusted for comorbidity prevalence, etc. but it would be worth digging into.

Unfortunately many of the related articles and studies I've found present and defend conclusions with such vigor that there is no room for necessary discussion; they seem more focused on supporting one preordained conclusion or another. That having been said, I've seen equally qualified and credentialed researchers land on either side, providing good arguments for and against all that's mentioned above.

The science many want me to "believe in", often turns out to be political "science", not the process of science. Editing to add: I believe that "believe in the science", for most that repeat this phrase, actually means "believe in the outcome I support".

Edit again: Ugh. I was just asked "so what's your point?". So: @champagnois hasn't supported his statement, and neither have you. I was trying to say why not take the data that should exist for, say, Australia, and take a step closer to actually finding out if lockdowns, masking, mandates had statistically significant effects on mortality and morbidity? For extra credit, try to include concomitant adverse events occurring as a result of these measures? (The AE count would be a SWAG, but you could at least get an idea for the magnitude).

And post-infection immunity is achieved not just by production of s-protein antibodies, but antibodies to proteins of the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the envelope of the virus.