What I can tell you is this: I happen to have first hand experience from a country that initially took some of the most draconian of measures when the virus surfaced. All with the usual explanations as for why all that was absolutely necessary.
Then, after some time, the local ruler needed to secure a reelection he had already planned before the virus spread. All of a sudden, it was like there was no virus anymore. Of course there was, but the topic was practically taboo while the elections where going on. Now that the elections are over, and said ruler has galvanized his position for the foreseeable future, the virus has returned and the number of infections grown. No surprise that stronger measures came back too. But that's not the interesting part.
What is interesting, is that during the elections none of the doom scenarios that almost every country around the globe has used to justify/explain their measures (whatever those might be), happened. There is a good chance that a lot of bad news was suppressed and covered up. If only to ensure the election would not be forcefully shut down. But there are only so many mysteriously dead people and failing hospitals that even a government with absolute power and no accountability can cover up.
The point here is this: that despite all the rhetoric about why all those draconian measure were so much necessary, when they were (practically all) temporarily lifted for political reasons, the world did not stop turning and neither did any systems collapse. In fact, in many/most aspects the country managed to temporarily recover more/faster than other countries in the region. That was, of course, until the election was over, and the virus "returned".
I am not saying that any of the measures are wrong or that they didn't help prevent deaths. But what I am saying is that maybe the "reasoning" regarding what will happen without them isn't as much established fact as many people like to believe.
Either way, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out which country I'm speaking of.
I "only" suggested to be careful about assuming what will happen to the systems, when the current measures are (temporarily) gone. That on itself should not be a revolutionary act in the first place. Remember, assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.
If I did not have a seriously surprising experience myself, regarding the story I told, then I certainly would not have responded as I did. But decide for yourself what you do with the info. If you (want to) dismiss it all outright, only because it does not come in a package you demand, then go ahead. I honestly couldn't care.
If you had perfect quarantine for a month, you would eradicate the virus. If you had harsh measures for a period of time, then ended them in order to do some massive social event, I'm not sure why you would expect outcomes similar to if you had never had a lockdown. A harsh quarantine is a reset button. Places need a little time and a few outsiders in order to be reinfected and start the process again.
And of course if the initial lockdown measures were effective, the base for a new wave of infections would be low, and it would take a separate 4 to 6 weeks for the next wave of cases to become seriously problematic.
However, my point was that the lifting of the strict measures did not lead to the collapse of the healthcare system, which was the justification of the initial measures. Consider also that the local healthcare system has been only a vague shadow of the advanced state of those in more "developed" countries.
In a way, what the locals may call a "social experiment", might be one of the few existing empirical test cases for what really happens when measures are (all but) lifted. Arguably it might also be true (although I think to a lesser degree) for some other countries in the region.
With what I know first hand, the virus certainly was not eradicated or conquered before or during the election. But the political response/dealings with that is a whole different discussion, and not one I want to have here.
So after reaching that state, which can be imagined as a "reset", the virus starts to spread more actively again once the measures are lifted, and of course there is a period where nothing "big" is visible. But that is also what we have seen in many European countries at the start of epidemics: the exponential curve has a phase where the number of cases is very low. Only later it gets to be much worse, fast.
The lockdowns work. You‘d have to somehow prove your claim for me to believe you.
I'm not here to debate you (or anyone). I will point it out, when people respond with something that is either incorrect or not applicable, but more out of courtesy than to convince anyone. It's just because they might not know the relevant local situation as I do. But, I sincerely don't care whether I convince you or not. Your mistakes and ignorance are your own responsibility; your funeral. I don't have to show or prove you anything.
I did not say that lockdowns don't work. They certainly did have (some) effect here. On the other hand, the virus did spreading either way, even with some of the most draconian measures taken anywhere. Those were new infections, for months. That in itself might at least suggest that you require extremely disproportionate measures (causing all kinds of damage) to really influence/contain the spread this way. That is, (especially) if you essentially don't test anyone. However, that's a whole different discussion/topic.
What I originally pointed out is that it was odd to see how, when all measures were lifted (for whatever the reason), none of the earlier predicted doom scenarios happened. Which should cause at least pause and wonder (or reassessment) whether those predictions/assumptions are actually accurate in the first place.
You can throw back in a theory, which wasn't applicable in this particular situation, which I can tell from the details/facts I personally know. Then you can throw a tantrum/fit, while claiming to know some unquestionably truthful/factual, and argue that therefore I must be wrong. Well, maybe your own beliefs are still the actual wrong part here.
Mind you, I don't give a shit about any political side or beliefs. Nor was I really bothered with any of the measures (not even the draconian ones, although they should be useful and not just a political tool). However, my big gripe is with people that take what ultimately still are estimations and predictive risk assessments (which in themselves are perfectly okay and reasonable, as long as they get updated with new insights and understandings), and start presenting them as canonical gospel that can not be questioned and should be religiously defended. There should be no place for dogma like that in science (or anywhere, for that matter).
To do science (or even do any conclusion) one needs verifiable facts. It's facts that I miss here. That you claim that somehow you “know” something that doesn’t match any other observation, without providing any numbers or data at all, except hearsay, doesn’t bring anything to anybody. My only conclusion is that your words, unsupported by anything at all, after seeing different behavior across the world for months just can't be trusted. What’s the difference between your claims and any claim appearing on 4chan?
If you would publish your data where it can be verified that it shows something that is completely opposite of what's observed in the rest of the world... that would be something that I would surely praise. And the rest of the world probably too. Imagine that... something that gives a new information different to the experience of the rest of the world, and it is actually true. I just don't see that in your messages.
The dynamics of epidemics are known: Rt > 1 produces exponential growth. But the speed of growth is dependent on the value, and every exponential function has the initial part that "still doesn't look bad." Rt = 1 produces linear growth. Rt < 1 results in the decay of the number of cases. You somehow claim that you see something different than that, even if the simplest explanation is that your hearsay story was based either on Rt > 1 but on the small number of starting cases or on Rt practically being around 1 where the number of new cases is never hard for the health system, or it can be that during the period described Rt oscillated around 1, again not stressing the health system. And all that is dependent on behavior of millions of people, who can in their environments, which could be relatively isolated from the rest, have their own initial conditions and their own Rt values.
But we just don't know what happened there -- we have no useful data from you.
I've checked, there's no point:
It "worked"... but only for a short time! Now the number of reported deaths per day reached the highest since the start of epidemics.
And before that short time of "everything's open", the measures enforced were among the strongest applied in Europe.
So the whole episode doesn't prove anything. Yes, after the extremely strong lockdown a small country can pretend for a month or so that "everything's fine" and that is totally unsurprising: look at the shape of all exponential functions: the start always appears so close to the x axis. Only later the exponential property of the curve becomes obvious, especially knowing that a person infected today won't be immediately sick and even less dead -- it takes time. And the spread continues during the time most have no or mild symptoms. Big countries can do all that even longer before the problems can't be hidden. But sooner or later the need for new hospitals for newly infected patients becomes obvious, which is exactly what can be seen now.
No country is going to bluff its way out of this pandemics. More than one tried.
My favorite country is Vietnam: they still have zero deaths in a country with 100 million inhabitants. Maybe other countries should check what they are doing? Also, Taiwan has only 7 deaths up to now, having 23 million inhabitants. Thailand has only 58 deaths, with 70 million living there. These three countries have together 200 million living there and still less than 100 reported deaths.
Taiwan banned the export of surgical masks and lifted it only a few days ago, and produced even 20 million masks per day(!) for its own needs:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3959712
Think about it: it produced a new mask for every its citizen every day.
Taiwan had around 20 cases total and exactly one death in the last two months.
I don't think anyone thought of it as established fact. But it also wasn't an established fact that we didn't have to take all those measures. It's a question of risk, not of absolute foreknowledge.
Also, as @acqq correctly points out, a period of time with strict lockdown can reduce the number of cases to the point that a relaxation of controls doesn't immediately result in a large outbreak. An exponential curve has a flat region [0] where it doesn't seem to be getting out of hand. If you manage to put yourselves well into that flat region, you will have bought yourself a period of time in which the controls can be relaxed. But it's only temporary.