Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example.
I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate.
We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.
Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.
I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts.
New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.
The vaccines have been instrumental in getting back to normal.
If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate.
The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.
So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.
This is called verifiable data.
Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures.
If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA.
This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures.
If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science".
Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.
If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away.
If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.
