Long time lurker, posting first time as driven by my need to address a perceived problem with the narrative.
Am I expected to believe that any data regarding infection rates or deaths is somehow sacrosanct; immune to the laws of probability and margin of error?
Seems to me we have no hard empirical evidence of rates of infection .. Population testing samples are quite small, and seemingly the basis for some creative extrapolative modelling. Modelling that to this date has been proven to be absolutely jaw-droppingly wrong.
We have what, a 10% tested population ? With a virus that is chimeric, proven to have already mutated, and paired with a test failure rate that provides no surety of any accuracy? I would think that any claims of knowing real infection rate or actual mortality are suspect pending a much more complete testing regimen. We simply can't know given our current coverage. The margins of error are gigantic. Not quite as gigantic as the current hysteria and resulting opportunistic attempts at control, but in the same ballpark.
Perhaps a more prudent discussion would be that it isn't whether or not attempts at totalitarian levels of control have occurred, they demonstrably have, but whether or not those attempts are justified in the name of public health.
"It's for your own good." - Every tinpot dictator ever.
