Lockdowns have been proven to be a terrible mistake

'And thorough research in New York City, where there has been the greatest concentration of occurrences of the illness in North America, well beyond that city’s proportionate share of the U.S. population, reveals that two-thirds of infections have been contracted by people who have been observing the shutdown and staying at home.'

'We know from Sweden what happens when the population is adequately warned and restaurants and theatres and sporting events are somewhat thinned but essentially everything goes on close to normal: the fatality rate rises to about 2.5 times the rate of Canada and perhaps 20 per cent above the United States, and 90 per cent of Sweden’s deaths from this virus occur in people 70 years old or above. Every death is a sadness and premature and avoidable deaths are tragedies, but putting between a fifth and a third of the population in grave financial danger and at risk of ancillary conditions that can also be deadly, to reduce the mortal incidence of the virus from 320 people in one million over the whole population to 200, is not a justifiable measure.' 

Conrad Black, as usual, was very sensible on Friday in the National Post

If there were to be 100k higher deaths this year than normal, that would be the worst year for per capita deaths in the UK since 1999. That'd be bad - losing 20 years of progress in reducing mortality. But would it be worth overturning our way of life for *years* on end to avoid?

— Andrew Lilico (@andrew_lilico) May 10, 2020