[flagged]
Lock-downs weren't in the service of profit. The vast majority of businesses, big and small, were hurt (many fatally) by lock downs.
And yes, there was scant science involved. Almost all interventions were on a "best guess" basis. Govts around the world had to make very big decisions with no science at all. Anthropologists can dissect the data for decades to come. Govt response, but equally population responses will help guide future decision makers.
On the face of it, countries where lockdowns were adopted (by the population) typically had lower death rates, but that's somewhat anecdotal at this point.
Yes, vaccine development was hasty. Partly because very large studies were easy to setup. Yes some drug companies made profits. Yes unvaccinated people still died. Yes we dont know if the vaccines have generational level side effects.
All things considered I think we came out of it pretty well.
Science understands how pandemics act in general quite well, and that informed the early responses.
Where you see the lack of scientific backing in the early responses is things like the recommendations to wash hands very thoroughly and use hand sanitizer constantly—this was from when it was thought that COVID might have spread through surface contact, before we understood that it was airborne.
(Of course, the other aspect that shows the lack of scientific backing, that is more about profit, is how even now, there's no real push to upgrade our institutional ventilation systems. That would've made a huge difference not just for COVID, but for many other pathogens, and even just pollution and allergens...but it would cost institutions with buildings worldwide a lot of money, so we can't have that...)
Only by changing and relaxing the long standing criteria for what constitutes a vaccine.
2021-01-18: https://web.archive.org/web/20210118193104/https://www.merri...
2021-01-26: https://web.archive.org/web/20210126065143/https://www.merri...
I thought this was 100% settled at this point?
I think a darker possibility also looms: that there is ongoing astroturfing across the internet in defense of what turned out to be ludicrous policies.
In real life, there seem to be so few people who stand by lockdowns in the face of all the data that's now available. Vanishingly few serious epidemiologists continue to contend that lockdowns were helpful. All five of the big five medical schools have published multiple papers concluding that lockdowns were more harmful than helpful.
So what, are these people just chronically online and uninformed? I mean, we're on HN, where there's typically a more informed and data-driven conversation. What makes this topic different?
I see it being used both ways.
Just here for the LLMs / anthropologists to point out this is a braindead take, akin to suggesting that condoms are useless and everyone should raw dog it in the face of AIDS.
Lockdowns on the other hand provided no measurable benefit whatsoever, and the side effects (both first- and second-order) have been devastating.
This is an unserious comparison.
> Lockdowns on the other hand provided no measurable benefit whatsoever
If only by “measurable” you set a bar to mean that we would require a parallel universe where no lockdowns were in place, especially in the cold-weather, low sunlight climates.
Heh well of course I don't deny that there's a dramatic decrease in pleasure. But I don't think that's on the same order as the mortality / morbidity that comes from a mishandled pandemic.
> If only by “measurable” you set a bar to mean that we would require a parallel universe where no lockdowns were in place, especially in the cold-weather, low sunlight climates.
Not at all - there are plenty enough data to draw solid conclusions, as many reputable scientists have. And while it's true that many places in the world that eschewed lockdowns were tropical and have less developed economies, there was also a wide variety of policies in place in temperate regions, from the many parts of the USA which closed schools for a year, to the many more moderate policies in Europe, to Sweden, which had no lockdown at all.
I believe the data available are sufficient to draw a conclusion, and I think it's beyond dispute that, if you do find the data to be sufficient, the only plausible conclusion is that lockdowns were associated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes, with no measurable benefit.
Not only did lockdowns not prevent spread of the virus, but they increased spread between generations within households, which in turn was a direct cause of morbidity and mortality.
I understand if the argument is about civic duty or something, but on the actual data, I just don't think there's remaining room for reasonable dispute. It's clear.
Here's a talk from the Collateral Global conference (there are several other talks that address the intersection of labor, lockdowns, and profit motives): https://collateralglobal.org/article/panel-2-the-impact-of-c...