1/ In most parts of the U.S. and Europe most hospitals are far from being overwhelmed. And most politicians have been in favor of lockdowns, because of mainstreams media's pressure instead of actual medical concerns

2/ The problem with this strategy is that it simply doesn't work. Even after several weeks of lockdown, the number of people infected continues rising, cause the virus can spread so easily

3/ Has the spread of the virus slowed down? Yes, there's no denying that. But at what cost? The lockdown has ruined more lives. Businesses are being shut down, 26 million people unemployed. Next big corporation and then government officials

4/ Furthermore, the lockdown and prolonged the pandemic. And if you think that a vaccine can get us out of this, fo-get-bout-it. Michael Snyder "There has never been a successful vaccine for this strain in all of Human History, and the task of trying to develop one has become

5/ exceedingly more difficult now that scientists have discovered that there are 30 different strains of the virus."
Our only hope is to rely on "Herd Immunity" as Johns Hopkins explains. And being that "Herd Immunity" is unlikely to occur, the spread of the virus will happen

6/ regardless of a lockdown. So, unless hospitals are being overwhelmed, there isn't a need for a lockdowns. The final case and death totals will be the same regardless of lockdowns. But from an economic view, the the difference is stark. We're running the risk of the lockdowns

7/ having a permanent risk if they aren't lifted soon. The economic devastation is undeniable. With all the data of the lockdowns having no effect of the stoping the spread of the virus, unnecessary and counterproductive, why keep them?

8/ People at risk should stay at home and avoid human interaction, obviously. But everyone should be allowed to get back to work. As long as hospitals aren't overwhelmed, it's better for the economy, and it helps in developing "Herd Immunity."