1/ This is fiction. In the most basic sense: it compares a made-up and unverifiable estimate of what might have happened if lockdowns had not occurred with actual death counts (which themselves are iffy).

There’s no real-world evidence lockdowns have saved lives... https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1262596354066599937

2/ In fact, in both the US and Europe, the states and nations with the longest, most restrictive lockdowns have had the worst outcomes. Correlation is not necessarily causation in this case, but at the least the correlation suggests lockdowns are largely irrelevant to outcome...

3/ Further, as far as I know - and I’ve looked - there is no evidence that “essential” workers, who are exempt from the lockdowns, are falling sick at rates greater than the general population...

4/ And because the main methods of transmission for #SARSCoV2 are intrafamilial, through public transportation, and nosocomial (we’ve known this for months) - there is little reason to believe lockdowns would matter in areas that don’t heavily use public transportation...

5/ And some reason to believe they would make matters worse by leading to a short-term surge in cases around the time of their imposition - the riskiest time.

6/ Finally: the best reason of all to believe lockdowns are useless is that their removal in states like Georgia has not just NOT led to an increase in hospitalizations and deaths but been associated with a decrease (not that you’d know from the media reports).