When Sweden decided for no lock-downs, we knew very little about the virus. It was effectively a jump into the unknown.
Even if the decision proves beneficial, it was an error, in the knowledge context of March 2020.
Even if the decision proves beneficial, it was an error, in the knowledge context of March 2020.
And lockdowns were a jump into an economic unknown, which also had very unpredictable effects. There's no way you can say it was an error given the evidence available at the time. We'll see how it works out in the end.
What if China had taken the most conservative policy in response to the appearance of covid-19? Maybe we would have been spared the turmoil and disruption of this pandemic. You're way too confident declaring this as "provably false".
Hopefully our knowledge is greater and our preparedness will be better such that we don't have to always take such an aggressive policy position when faced with a novel virus.
Focussing so myopically on the above has had unmeasurable consequences on a huge variety of fronts. My prime fury is reserved for closing schools. Extraordinary damage done, gulfs in opportunity and experience widened. Nobody cares much. Death stats are, after all, the only thing that matters to the media at large
As we acquire more information, policy should evolve with it. Limits on individual freedoms are blunt policy tools that should be used only when necessary, because they aren't zero cost.
I don't think we should have forever lockdowns at all. I'm in the camp of "get vaccinated and move on with your life" and that we should be more upfront about how covid-19 isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon.
If you don't know how it's transmitted, then try various things and see if they help. We tried lockdown, and it worked. So we kept doing it, if it didn't change the situation we would have tried other things instead.
It is not that lockdown is bad or wrong. It is that I do not agree with all the things which were hit. I acknowledge there is a price to keeping education open but I believe it would have been worthwhile.
Perhaps you missed my point? Governing is about more than keeping the most people alive.
Actually I believe that’s table stakes for good governance. Trading known deaths for possible impact to development of children isn’t even in the realm of equal, which is why most places didn’t do it.
What about the children who infected their parents and now they're orphans?
No, we tried lockdowns, they did not work well, then extended them, then again. In my country some school children did not go to school for a whole year because people with anxiety disorder thought opening schools would kill children, parents and grand parents.
That's subjective: It depends on how much risk you're willing to take on. People here were pretty supportive of the policy, so presumably willing to take on more risk than you. Like you, I wasn't but that's just how it goes.
When faced with a cataclysmic, albeit low probability, event, the only course of action is the cautious one.
> When faced with a cataclysmic, albeit low probability, event, the only course of action is the cautious one.
This is nothing but extreme risk aversion. Some people, most, do not share it with you.
https://healthfeedback.org/what-has-been-the-effect-of-the-p...
Please make no mistake, lockdowns will go down in history as the biggest mistake of the modern human history. The only reason why we're still arguing in here is because it's damn near impossible to admit one made the biggest mistake in modern human history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY
They had a clear plan, unlike other governments like Germany, who still do not have a plan how to get out of this mess.