Think what you'd like, but I've looked at whatever sources/evidence you sent me and refuted them. You haven't touched mine.
But you're right, I don't think I'm wrong. How is that a problem?
So which is it. Are they so effective as to cause a harm? Or harmless as to have no effect?
You're saying this like it's a bad thing. I'm building and defending what I think is right, correct, the truth, etc. You can barely do anything in response.
Oof, there's a groundshift. Again, your evidence proved none of those things.
Even if I refuted everything Michael Knowles said, we'd be in the same place. I'd rather you argue for yourself.
Same evidence as the Sweden study.
See above refutation.
Not really -- You've already giving me the testimony of 8,000 people in the Great Barrington Declaration. 10 people wrong is the same as a 100 people wrong. 🤷♂️
Integration of society/technology across lines such as nationality, leading to eventual interdependence.
Via the Economist:
Even before the pandemic, globalisation was in trouble. The open system of trade that had dominated the world economy for decades had been damaged by the financial crash and the Sino-American trade war. Now it is reeling from its third body-blow in a dozen years as lockdowns have sealed borders and disrupted commerce (see Briefing [https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/05/14/covid-19s-blow-to-world-trade-is-a-heavy-one]). The number of passengers at Heathrow has dropped by 97% year-on-year; Mexican car exports fell by 90% in April; 21% of transpacific container-sailings in May have been cancelled. As economies reopen, activity will recover, but don't expect a quick return to a carefree world of unfettered movement and free trade. The pandemic will politicise travel and migration and entrench a bias towards self-reliance. This inward-looking lurch will enfeeble the recovery, leave the economy vulnerable and spread geopolitical instability.
The pandemic does anything but increase globalization.
Then prove me wrong. One of anything. One source, legitimately. It's not so much of a dare than it is a confirmation at this point that you're not just seething at your desk, with no evidence and no arguments left.
This was never a discussion, and I'm not arguing for your sake. I'm clarifying the facts here, before anyone else is misled by the prevarication you're indulging in.
I'm going to rewind a bit, because I think I missed one thing.
I did see most of your sources. The only ones I did not were the videos either because 1. they used the same resources as some of the written articles. 2. they were purely rhetorical.
By "best" I mean most indicative of the flaws in what you're arguing.