"Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence"

This sounds disturbing:

The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome.

Related: "Lockdown: a deadly, failed experiment".