And as far as rational discussions go, while I think climate (and especially UV light) can play a role, if you look at a lot of countries, there are hot countries who have done well, and hot countries that have done badly.
Look at Qatar, Bahrain, French Guinea, French Polynesia - they have done horribly and they are hot places. Go to worldometer and order it by cases per 100,000 population.
The countries that have done well are those that are not stuck in the cycle of lockdown/re-open - who have done track and trace, been strict with borders and quarantine and used lockdowns very sparingly. Lockdowns are not the answer - they are for when it has completely gotten out of control. Or do you want to see an ER run over, where people can't get help for a broken leg or accident? Because it would come to that.
It's a false dichotomy of 'it's either the economy or health'. The countries that have done the best (who were most strict early on) are the ones whose economies are doing the best - Taiwan for example.
As a restauranter I know said - it's not the lockdowns that are killing his business, it's the virus, as they are not full even when at 50% capacity rule.
People make this argument for the economy 'open everything up' not understanding that doing that is trashing the economy if it was not properly contained first. IF countries had acted properly in the beginning, their economies would be near back to normal by now, as we can see with some countries - the ones doing the best.
So why criticise countries that are doing the best in terms of economy - and are the ones who have gotten the virus under control? Can you not see the link?