We could also be wrong in the other direction. The European COVID could have been a mutation to the point where the 15% or so death rate that Italy was seeing was actually the natural death rate for COVID. COVID could have been far more devastating to children, who do not have the immunity adults do. It may have been completely resistant to a vaccine for years, like viruses like HIV.
The idea that uncertainty about COVID reduced the need for a lockdown in March April when we knew that China was scared enough of the virus that it shut down Wuhan completely, and Italy was seeing an epic disaster, is completely backwards. The uncertainty at that point was MORE reason to lock down, and use fiscal and monetary tools to handle the economic effects which we did know about and could predict and defend from, until we got a better understanding of the virus.
Sweden, once again, is very instructive. Their PHA’s position was to basically protect the eldest by insisting that anyone showing symptoms stay home and not go to care homes to work or visit. But our complete lack of knowledge meant that Tegnells did not know that asymptomatic carriers ans transmission existed, which essentially made a mockery of this plan and wrecked any hope of Sweden handling the pandemic well.
The idea that just because there are no proven studies that show what works and what doesn’t means we don’t do anything is beyond stupid. A lack of confirmed evidence means we need to take actions based on the slight evidence we do have, while weighing the cost of those actions to individuals and society, and whether those costs can be mitigated or not.
So, for example, requiring masks once we had a suspicion that it was spread via aerosols and droplets as opposed to fomites, which was the initial understanding, meant that mandating masks was a no brainer. Worst case scenario if you’re wrong is that people are out $20-$30 each, but you will more than make that up in the reduced spread of other diseases that we do know masks would help with, such as the flu, which has basically been non existent this year thanks to COVID measures.
Lockdowns were obviously more drastic, and the complete lack of knowledge and disasters unfolding in Wuhan (remember China constructing 2-3 hospitals in days to handle what happened there) and Italy, and uncontrolled rise of cases in other parts of Europe and the US meant a lockdown was almost necessary.
Once we did find out more about the virus, once we got testing under control, and now that doctors understand treatments better leading to a much lower death rate, a full lockdown like in spring does not appear necessary. Distancing and mask wearing and gathering outdoors seem sufficient to control it. When people do not follow this leading to a spike in cases, temporary, localized, soft lockdowns make sense until we get people to follow this.
The contrarians in Sweden and the Great Barrington Deckaration (which is hilariously not scientific at all, and is basically completely wrong at this point) are not holding a contrary scientific viewpoint. They are holding apolitical viewpoint which they are promoting with the absence of science.