you know I hate to be difficult or disrespectful, but as I'm reading this it's occurring to me that this report is not quite on point. This sub against lockdowns per se, as far as I can tell. People aren't saying "I will stay home and lockdown voluntarily just don't fucking make me!" People are here arguing the lockdowns are harmful and bad, which implies people should not voluntarily lockdown either.

This ACLU report is the type of thing I'm looking for, but it's not about lockdowns, it's about force: threats, handcuffs, batons, cages. It doesn't argue against widespread quarantine; it's not going to get into epidemiological data to show that more people are going to die with the schools closed than with them open. I can see already, it's not going to try to make the argument that voluntary quarantines are bad. It's merely going to argue that people shouldn't be forced. Which, fine. I'm not going to argue people should be shot and terrorized into compliance.

But I do think it's appropriate to be critical and derogatory toward people who are being wilfully ignorant and irresponsible. So all that gets us is back where we started: Y'all ought to be more cooperative about this and sacrifice for the greater good, but you don't wanna, and thus I call bullshit.

Has anyone made an argument as well cited and researched as that ACLU report but answering the big question, which is: Does quarantining everyone kill more people than it saves? Does it cause more harm than good, if harm and good are measured in terms of human health and life exclusively (meaning, money does not count)? At what point does disruption to the economy itself kill more people than the novel virus? That's my question. It seems like a natural question for an open-minded leftist to have. It also doesn't seem like a question the leftists around here are asking.