Ahhh, lockdowns. Something the WHO did not recommend pre-2020 because of the damage they cause (economic, social, health) and because there was no evidence of benefit. Initially I was in favour of an earlier and tougher "lockdown" as it seems to make sense right? Sadly not. By the time formal restrictions were brought in we were already past peak infections. Voluntary measures combined with the onset of summer were enough, like in other other european countries.
As summed up by the excellent tweet I've copied below the epidemic will run its natural course (looks like vaccines will thankfully help on an ongoing basis as the virus is endemic). If lockdowns had a major impact it would be utterly clear in the data. It isn't.
Sweden vs UK (yes yes, Sweden vs Norway/Finland). Florida (open) vs California (restrictions) yet very similar results. North vs South Dakota...... similar result despite very different restrictions. At some point we will realise that generally Europe and the Americas were hard hit and Asia and Africa less so. Maybe we'll focus on the reasons for this instead of being obsessed with lockdowns and NPIs.
View attachment 14219
Not to say I think we should have had no restrictions, we should have some. Just the sensible ones..... work from home where possible, reduce social contacts, shield vulnerable where possible, ramp up healthcare, ventilate, ensure the ill isolate.
Instead we have had a government and a scientific advisory board (and "independent" versions) terrifying its people when it should be doing the exact opposite in a time of crisis. We lurched from a standard established response to panic and enacting measures and restrictions which likely had minimal impact and caused huge damage, stress, and anxiety.
No need to believe me though, below are the words of Donald Henderson (epidemiologist involved in the eradication of smallpox). Wise wise words.......
View attachment 14220