Why?
The reason is because of the increase of international travel.
First by steamer, then by airlines.
Before international travel, when a new disease came upon the scene, the pathogen mutated into new variants but the original population of people were affected in a minor way because they had built up immunity from the original outbreak.
It was when someone (a sailor, soldier, merchant or adventurer OR with fleas or rats in tow) that had the disease in its advanced evolution arrived in a new and distant community that havoc was wreaked.
Mainly, because that new community had missed out on developing antibodies to the contagion during the pathogen's evolution.
This is the reason why the discovery of the Americas by Europeans was so devastating. The Europeans brought with them viruses to which they had developed immunity over the time period that these microorganisms had become more virulent. They had little effect on the hosts but had become superbugs to the native Americans.
So, with that in mind. Why in the hell do the "experts" think that lockdowns are the best way to slow the spread of a new disease? If someone hides in their house and effectively misses out on the first generations of the infection without developing natural immunity, then they are more and more at risk of dying when they finally catch a later, possibly more virulent strain.
That's like turning the clock back 200 years and losing the benefit we are reaping of international travel, which keeps any one virus from mutating in an isolated population before breaking away and devasting another population.
Then add to the mix that the vaccines that have been developed are considered "leaky" vaccines that accelerate the rate of mutation beyond the natural mutation rate as the viruses that are resistant to the vaccines pass their genes on more quickly to new generations of virus.
It seems to me, these "experts" don't have any common sense.
