Were lockdowns done in vain? And have we set a dangerous precedent?
Bunch of questions. Don't flame him or me. Just participate in the debate.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/pandemic-economy-less...
https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3561560
To summarize, during the 1918 flu pandemic, American cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (including quarantines) suffered no additional adverse economic effects due to implementing those measures when compared with cities that implemented measures late or not at all.
http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150111194407/http://www.hist...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291414
Again, to summarize, American Samoa and New Caledonia succeeded in preventing even a single death from the 1918 influenza through effective quarantines.
Yes. Courts have historically granted a lot of deference to the government in crisis situations. Also, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" [0]
> Were lockdowns effective?
Yes. In pretty much every region, the flattening of new cases lined up exactly with the beginning of lockdown measures + incubation time, and this was also captured by unofficial measurements like smart thermometer data: [1]
> Could other measured responses have achieved similar outcomes?
Probably not. The aforementioned thermometer data showed no drop in fevers from the early half-measures like banning large gatherings, effectiveness was only from the lockdowns.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-fever-...
That debate is already happening, so, no, shit posting like this isn't starting it and certainly not participating in it.
Don't pretend this tweet is what it isn't.