Well I was going to come up with all these facetious possibilities, such as spreads through computers, or it’s caused by 5G.
But there is no way a lock down with physical distancing isn’t reducing the spread. If your not anywhere other people who is going to give it to you?
And the fact is that we’ve seen a flattening in the number of cases. And that was after the lock down occurred. Anyone should be able to look at the data and say, yes we are seeing an effect.
So there is only one possibility. These researchers are stupid.
“Post hoc ergo prompter hoc” is a logical fallacy. Literally translated the Latin phrase means “After the fact, therefore because of the fact”. A drop in growth rate of infections was to be expected; the progression of every other pandemic in human history has followed the same course. We don’t know for sure whether or not the lockdown caused the drop. More accurately, we don’t know if the lockdown caused the drop to be larger than what would have naturally occurred without a lockdown. You can certainly express an opinion on the matter and you may even be right, but to just dismiss this study as stupid is begging the question— you are assuming the conclusion you wish to reach, that the lockdown caused a larger decline than what would have naturally occurred.