Yes... mask mandates were unnecessary. Businesses may choose. I went to the Safari Park in San Diego Yesterday. They has us wearing masks outdoors.... I should have also been wearing a helmet too because catching covid outdoors as you walk by people or keep your distance is imaginary... satellites falling out of the sky are not.
We can't know this. We can't know whether the same businesses would have mandated masks, on their own, had states not done so. We can't know whether fewer people would have masked up, if they didn't see some states taking it that seriously. You keep thinking you know what would have happened, if the past were different. Why can't you understand that you can't know that? We can guess all day long, about shit that never happened, but might have happened ... that's normal. What's not normal is thinking our guesses would have actually been facts.
That is my point. All the efficacy of lockdown b.s. is unknown or failed because the data does not show superior performance and in some cases it shows worse covid performance and tremendous overall damage. The burden should be on the fascists to produce the data to support the damage they are doing...freedom is the status quo.
Again, and again, we don't know which approach would have been superior, because we can't go back in time to compare it to a 'what if we did it this way instead' scenario. Society made decisions, via it's representatives: masks and distance and shut-downs; businesses made decisions too--but we have no way of knowing if those decisions were better or worse than hypothetical 'what if we had done it this way' scenarios.
Again and again... arguing you don't know... because you lack proof and data that lockdowns saved overall harm... is not a good argument for your side. That is the argument against them. Why destroy lives and businesses... sometimes violating constitutional rights if you don't have the data saying you are saving overall harm.
There is evidence, if not "proof." We still haven't "proven" the Theory of Relativity either; yet, we use it. And again, we have to agree to disagree. And again, we have to agree to disagree.
We have "proven" the Theory of Relativity. It is a scientific "Theory" and it is falsifiable. It makes predictions and some of those predictions were verified. If I recall from my school days... We put atomic clocks in planes and showed time change at different speeds. We saw star light bend around the sun... (and other proofs) The theory that locking down saved lives, infections or overall damage is not something I have seen anyone be able to prove. Any evidence we see is easily countered... by the existence of second waves. If you can provide the evidence which is not easily countered... go for it.
You remind me of Oswald Bates. It's still a theory. It's not the Law of Relativity. https://www.masterclass.com/article...scientific-method#what-is-a-scientific-theory Theory vs. Law: Basics of the Scientific Method May 5, 2021 The scientific method involves formulating hypotheses and testing them to see if they hold up to the realities of the natural world. Successfully proven hypotheses can lead to either scientific theories or scientific laws, which are similar in character but are not synonymous terms. What Is a Scientific Theory? A scientific theory is a description of the natural world that scientists have proven through rigorous testing. As understood within the scientific community, a theory explains how nature behaves under specific conditions. Theories tend to be as broad as their supporting scientific evidence will permit. They seek to serve as a definitive explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A theory begins as a hypothesis: a proposed explanation for a natural phenomenon. In order to turn a hypothesis into a proven theory, researchers design science experiments to challenge their ideas under the conditions of the natural world. By adhering to the scientific method and working with careful attention to detail, scientists can eventually accumulate enough evidence to prove their hypothesis, thus making it a theory with predictive power. 4 Examples of Scientific Theories Many famous scientific theories have shaped our understanding of the natural world as we know it. The Big Bang Theory: The Big Bang Theory claims that the universe started as a small singularity 13.8 billion years ago and expanded suddenly. The Heliocentric Theory: Nicolaus Copernicus’s theory demonstrates that Earth travels around the Sun in our solar system. The Theory of General Relativity: Albert Einstein's theory claims that massive objects (like the Earth) cause a distortion in space-time, which is experienced as gravity. This theory actually supplanted one of the most famous scientific laws, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: Charles Darwin's theory—most succinctly summarized as “survival of the fittest”—explains how gradual changes in populations of organisms over time leads to the emergence of traits that allow those organisms to survive. What Is a Scientific Law? Like theories, scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true. Generally, laws describe what will happen in a given situation as demonstrable by a mathematical equation, whereas theories describe how the phenomenon happens. Scientific laws develop from scientific discoveries and rigorously tested hypotheses, and new theories generally uphold and expand laws—though neither is ever held to be unimpeachably true. 4 Examples of Scientific Laws The laws that anchor the world's scientific knowledge include: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: Sir Isaac Newton's 1687 law of gravity describes the attractive forces between all forms of matter. This theory of gravity establishes a bedrock for many subsequent theories, as the force of gravity impacts nearly all physical relationships in the universe. Newton’s Laws of Motion: First published in 1687, this set of three laws describes the role that competing forces play on an object at motion or at rest. Boyle's Law: Alternately known as Boyle-Mariotte Law or Mariotte's Law, this describes the relationship between gas volume and gas pressure. Physicists Robert Boyle and Edme Mariotte discovered the law independently in 1662 and 1676, respectively. The Laws of Thermodynamics: This set of four laws concerns thermodynamic work, entropy, heat, temperature, and other forces pertaining to the transfer of energy. Scientific Theory vs. Law: What’s the Difference? Scientific laws differ from theories in that they tend to describe a narrower set of conditions. A scientific law might explain the relationship between two specific forces or between two changing substances in a chemical reaction. Theories are typically more expansive, and they focus on the how and why of natural phenomena. Both scientific laws and theories are considered scientific fact. However, theories and laws can be disproven when new evidence emerges. Certain accepted truths of Newtonian physics were partially disproven by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The work of Louis Pasteur disproved prior theories of disease in animals. If thorough scientific research upends a previously held belief, scientists must find new hypotheses that better describe how nature works.
Right that is why I responded about a scientific theory and it being proven.... you are simply telling me what I was telling you.
Laws are held in a higher regard than theories. Simply, Laws have been proven. Theories have not been disproven. There is a difference, that's why we use the word Law, for some; and Theory for others. Many, like you, misspeak and say that Theories have been proven. If and when a theory has, in fact, been proven; it becomes a law.