
There is no empirical evidence for the US lockdowns - walterbell
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/22/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-for-these-lockdowns/
======
ColinWright
Early in the piece, here is the critical sentence:

> _I do not find that lockdowns are a more effective way of handling
> coronavirus than well-done social-distancing measures._

Properly done physical-distancing measures will accomplish everything needed.
Lockdowns are not needed if people will observe proper, well-executed physical
distancing.

So why issue instructions for lockdowns?

My guess is this:

Without strict "by the book", precisely specified, overly prescriptive
detailed instructions, many people don't properly practice effective physical
distancing.

The idea is that the lockdown gives an additional "margin of error" for
enforcement and social disapproval to take effect. There are some real idiots
out there, and the government guidelines/instructions have to take that into
account when they consider enforcement and practice.

~~~
danieltillett
This basically boils down to the argument that we don’t need police and courts
if we all just obey the law and look out for our fellow man. Anarchism has
some junior high level intellectual appeal, but out in the real world...

------
celticninja
it's better to have a lockdown now and graduate to social distancing
afterwards. after initially slowing the advance of the infection, we are then
better able to study it. if there was no lockdown then infections and deaths
are higher and things like studying the actual data get kicked down the road.
which makes planning harder to do.

we already see that there are idiots out there who will ignore lockdown rules,
please say vidiots would ignore social distancing rules but it will be harder
to enforce those where is lockdown rules are easier to enforce

