Ross Miller wrote:WGS - there is likewise no evidence that not implementing some or all elements of the current restrictions would have had an impact on infection and death rates. Whilst there is some degree of correlation between the imposition of restrictions and reduction in infection and death rates I agree that this cannot be taken to evidence causation. I do suspect however that there is some causal link between reduction in proximity on mass and the reductions in R0 seen in many countries.
RM, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And the claim is that 'lockdown' (trashing liberty and the economy) reduces infections and death from covid-19 (or 'saves lives' if you prefer a slogan). No evidence has yet been offered to substantiate that claim, and without evidence it remains simply an assertion without foundation.
It's not my job to find that evidence. But anyone attempting it will be in a tight spot indeed. There's not even correlation, let alone causation. Deaths peaked on 8 April; infection precedes death at the very least by 14 days; 'lockdown' began on 23 March, 16 days before peak deaths. Clearly 'lockdown' has had zero effect on 'saving lives'.
'Suspecting' a causal link is, of course, not establishing one. We're in this mess because dodgy scientists entered dodgy data into dodgy scientific modelling and came up with conditionals, and milksop politicians sucked it up and locked us up. Enough of 'might' and 'could' and 'suspect'. Our problem now is that those who hitched their wagons to the 'lockdown' express want to disengage but don't know how to without ruining their careers and reputations.