> The one area of valid debate is whether good mitigation strategies were chosen and implemented wisely. Often they weren't. Test and trace, masking, and PPE provision should have been central, allowing more limited lockdowns.
> In the most badly hit countries none of that happened, and without them full-spectrum lockdowns were the only (blunt) tool that was left.
This exactly. I get really frustrated with the simplistic argument over whether lockdown measures have been better or worse than doing nothing, because it misses that these were not the only two options. Not even close. When you look at how countries that reacted quickly to the virus and implemented, masking, testing, PPE provisions and sensible social-distancing requirements, it is clear that those countries were able to recover, both economically and socially. In areas, like the United States, that waited until it was too late to do anything, and then were forced to implement lockdowns, the outcome is far worse and the aggregate human toll — irrespective of death count due to the virus — much greater.
As a strong supporter of civil liberties, I’m in a difficult position, when I try to balance some of the more draconian state-run actions of places like Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, with the effects we see in the United States. For all of the many negatives of that kind of government/militaristic control, I can’t help but think that if the US had done that, the global economy, not to mention all of the industries that have evaporated in the US, would have recovered much more strongly by now.
This is absolutely not a trolley problem. This didn’t have to be a choice between two negative outcomes. There were ways to mitigate exposure that could have saved people from dying from the coronavirus, while also limiting the debilitating impact of lockdown. The world's biggest superpower just didn’t do that.