The idea that lockdowns, especially during exponential spread, don't limit transmission defies logic and is obviously wrong. Whether that makes them good policy and a net positive moving forward is a different question.
Truth is the lockdowns were likely necessary at first to lower transmission rate, give us time to prepare/get equipment in place, & encourage behavior changes.
Cost of lockdowns continued to grow over time and benefits (which weren't 0) went down once rate of new cases slowed.
Cost of lockdowns continued to grow over time and benefits (which weren't 0) went down once rate of new cases slowed.
People who claim there was no benefit aren't actually looking at any facts or data, which clearly points to that not being true. They simply don't want to bother dealing with evidence that could be used against their preferred conclusion so they insist it doesn't exist.
If lockdowns did nothing, why does Sweden have 8X death rate of their neighbors despite social distancing measures? One thing to argue their strategy could work out in long run, but another to just ignore results thus far and claim there was 0 difference.
I think evidence against Sweden's approach is stacking up.
But more importantly for this convo, their strategy wasn't based on ridic claim lockdowns having 0 impact, but the opposite: that real short-term benefits were outweighed by long-term costs.
But more importantly for this convo, their strategy wasn't based on ridic claim lockdowns having 0 impact, but the opposite: that real short-term benefits were outweighed by long-term costs.
