Your argument for lockdown is unfalsifiable. Any good outcome is attributable to lockdown, and any bad outcome is because we did not lockdown soon enough. What piece of evidence could you possibly see that would convince you you were wrong?
Your argument for lockdown is unfalsifiable. Any good outcome is attributable to lockdown, and any bad outcome is because we did not lockdown soon enough. What piece of evidence could you possibly see that would convince you you were wrong?
If you want to get down to epistemological arguments, then we should be clear: we can't know ANYTHING about the real world for certain and all no claim about the natural world is falsifiable; the only claims we can make are those that are tautological or conceptual only. The scientific method itself does not stand on anything more than epistemological sand.
Obviously, that's a ridiculous way to think about the world and not helpful. What we CAN do is see the changes in trajectory of the virus growth rate caused by the lockdown; and extrapolate based on the data that we've seen about how it would grow without the lockdown. This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part).
I believe you, but can you cite some domain experts so that we have something to work off of?