A case for ending lockdown
The premise of this post is extremely flawed:<p>&gt; Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur.<p>Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That&#x27;s the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it&#x27;s obvious we&#x27;d have a lot more dead people the past month.<p>&gt; Moreover, this was not due to success in seriously curtailing the spread in hard-hit areas like New York, but was rather due to the aforementioned discovery that COVID-19, while extremely deadly in certain subsets of the population, was not nearly as deadly overall as previously thought.<p>This is a lie followed by possible truth. New York and other cities were under pretty extreme lockdowns (all non-essential businesses closed, social distancing, but most people have been staying inside) for the past two months. If one asserts that had no or little effect, well... HN doesn&#x27;t take kindly to what I&#x27;d like to say. Let&#x27;s just say that you&#x27;re delusional.<p>&gt; An analysis of the flawed IMHE model is outside the scope of this article<p>Ah, how convenient - lying about the effect of the lockdowns and attributing it instead to (nothing? since ICUs have clearly been over capacity while we&#x27;ve cut down transmission rates) then ignoring analysis of them.<p>I didn&#x27;t really dive into the rest of the article since I don&#x27;t really like reading words written by intellectually dishonest people.