Forgive me if all of this has been covered on here previously, but I've not been keeping up with this thread or with the news in general recently.
BUT
Early on in this saga as a result of the national "data" we had an enforced "soft" lockdown and as a result (mortality and general infection) cases dropped, however, the economy crashed, so certain restrictions needed to be lifted in order to stimulate the economy;
BUT,
What I can't figure out is why didn't we stagger these restriction lifts?
Why didn't we leave enough of a time gap between each of these easing of restrictions to gather evidence to see which of these changes were effecting the R rate?
We just "went for it" wholescale, almost every day new restrictions were being lifted.
We were told very early on that we could be infected by the virus, but that there was as much as a two week incubation period between infection and symptoms, so, why were there not two week gaps between each of the lifts to work out what had an affect and what didn't?
This is NOT a scientific approach, not even close.
It doesn't make an ounce of sense to me (and I'm supposedly quite scientifically minded), which leads my mind to believe that there is something fairly dodgy about all this, and that we're not being told the whole truth here.
If anybody can come close to giving me a reason I'd be very grateful as my Bipolar mind is kicking in and the conclusions I'm reaching during my manic periods are fairly "conspiracy theorist" :):