[argvargc]

Won't even examine 400 counter-claims? That's "denialism".

Lockdowns working/not-working and/or causing collateral damage potentially eliminating other gains is not even remotely on par with astrology.

Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at.

Your rigid adherence to them as beacons of purity only demonstrates your religious-like faith in them, which strikes me as having far more in common with astrology than well-evidenced arguments by well-credentialed individuals that they might not work or be counterproductive.

[FabHK]

I have no strong opinion on the lockdowns. In fact, when you have the optimal amount of lockdown, a large minority of the population might well think that they're too lenient, and a different large minority of the population might well think that they're too strong.

What I object to is your demand that anyone disagreeing with you first go through 400 studies, individually, and find the flaws in them, and destruct the credentials of the authors.

[squeaky-clean]

You just said it's been proven that lockdowns are harmful. Now you're saying the longterm results can't be known by anyone, only guessed at.

[argvargc]

No, I didn't. I said:

> Here is a summary of over 400 studies demonstrating lockdowns are ineffective or harmful:

You're welcome to present studies demonstrating the opposite, but even if you can find 400 of them (and I doubt you can), the best we'd have arrived at would be equal uncertainty either way.

The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part.