[np_tedious]

I have yet to find a directionally-lockdown-lessening argument from an epidemiologist. Are you aware of any? This and David Katz are the closest things I've read.

It seems to me these are big questions that necessitate a healthy debate considering all the pros and cons of lockdown measures. There's a lot of moving parts and dimensions: time, which activities should be resumed or kept closed, who should observe what protective measures, travel restrictions, etc. We need people, experts from various fields AND layfolk, to have a real dialog about them. "Lockdown until vaccine unless proven otherwise" is simply not going to work.

Perhaps I haven't found these kind of voices because there is not actually a decent argument to be made. Maybe I've just missed them. Maybe epidemiologists aren't, by and large, disposed to think about economic impact, long term health implications of living in lockdown, or other second order effects. Or quite likely they are scared shitless to make anything resembling a pro-opening argument because their field is ridden with groupthink orthodoxy at the moment. Much like we see from whichever (IMO) bad actors were flagging this post.

[watwut]

The imperial college recommended interminnent lockdowns - lock, release, lock, release and so on depending on how you keep it under control. Does that count?

Germany is having this discussion and Czech republic too. In both cases, epidemiologist recommend slight release of rules (not a big one, but still lowering lockdown).

[np_tedious]

Yeah, that's absolutely what I'm looking for! Any particular articles or other links you'd recommend?

[watwut]

I dont have link at hand, but I came across it on this https://www.coursera.org/learn/covid-19/ course. It is linked somewhere withing first 3 weeks I think.