When we look back on the pandemic, it may simultaneously be true that (i) “herd immunity”, if that’s what we’re seeing in eg Sweden, may have been achievable at lower mortality, and so less unreasonable to pursue, than COVID hawks predicted; and (ii) countries that succeeded 1/
at suppressing the pandemic until a vaccine (Nordics ex Sweden, Taiwan, S Korea, NZ, Uruguay, etc, if they don’t lapse) experienced much, much lower mortality and morbidity than those that failed (the US, most of Europe ex Germany/Nordics). 2/
No one, under these circumstances, need admit they were wrong. COVID hawks will point to the huge mortality/morbidity relative to successful suppression and tut that their countries should have listened. COVID doves will point to the much-lower-than-initially-modeled mortality 3/
and the fact that suppression failed in most places to tut that we could all just have been Sweden—no lockdown, schools open, just some caution to flatten (not crush) the curve—and done approximately as well. 4/
All of this depends on the low current mortality in Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, NY etc holding due to significant population immunity, rather than surging as behavioral caution subsides. If low mortality even in hard-hit places depends upon continuing caution 5/
more than population immunity, then there is no civilized alternative to sustaining burdensome behaviors until a vaccine or better treatment becomes available and COVID hawks would basically have been proven right. /fin
