Easy to dismiss him because of his wealth or other prejudices you may have of him. "Free America Now" raises an incredibly important debate that all lockdown-ridden countries should be having. Were lockdowns constitutional? Were lockdowns effective? Could other measured responses have achieved similar outcomes?
Were lockdowns done in vain? And have we set a dangerous precedent?
Bunch of questions. Don't flame him or me. Just participate in the debate.
"Just participate in the debate" is the kind of nonsensical rhetoric Creationists use to push their religious beliefs into science education. There is no debate. There are no questions. The only dangerous precedent we're setting is one of ignoring the expert epidemiologists tasked with protecting the public.
To summarize, during the 1918 flu pandemic, American cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (including quarantines) suffered no additional adverse economic effects due to implementing those measures when compared with cities that implemented measures late or not at all.
Again, to summarize, American Samoa and New Caledonia succeeded in preventing even a single death from the 1918 influenza through effective quarantines.
Yes. Courts have historically granted a lot of deference to the government in crisis situations. Also, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" [0]
> Were lockdowns effective?
Yes. In pretty much every region, the flattening of new cases lined up exactly with the beginning of lockdown measures + incubation time, and this was also captured by unofficial measurements like smart thermometer data: [1]
> Could other measured responses have achieved similar outcomes?
Probably not. The aforementioned thermometer data showed no drop in fevers from the early half-measures like banning large gatherings, effectiveness was only from the lockdowns.
Were lockdowns done in vain? And have we set a dangerous precedent?
Bunch of questions. Don't flame him or me. Just participate in the debate.