> If you have to search out a single country out of over a hundred to find supporting data you probably are just p-hacking
You are not considering how positivism works. If you say lockdowns work you have to prove that in all instances. I just need one (1) counter example to disprove your theory completely.
> Do this enough times and you'll find a pen with p<0.05 that goes the farthest.
Cherry-picking. Yeah, that's what focusing on Australia and NZ while ignoring Peru and Sweden is, exactly.
Finding two patients who got better after blood-letting is not enough to prove blood-letting works. Your theory has to fit all the available quality data (so no China or model "data" allowed).
> I'm sure they're be so upset to get free money per month while not having to work.
Yeah that was the extend of lockdowns. Go tell that to the people that where locked up without visitors in nursing homes for months on end.
You are not considering how positivism works. If you say lockdowns work you have to prove that in all instances. I just need one (1) counter example to disprove your theory completely.
> Do this enough times and you'll find a pen with p<0.05 that goes the farthest.
Cherry-picking. Yeah, that's what focusing on Australia and NZ while ignoring Peru and Sweden is, exactly.
Finding two patients who got better after blood-letting is not enough to prove blood-letting works. Your theory has to fit all the available quality data (so no China or model "data" allowed).
> I'm sure they're be so upset to get free money per month while not having to work.
Yeah that was the extend of lockdowns. Go tell that to the people that where locked up without visitors in nursing homes for months on end.