[ajsnigrutin]

This very much depends on the age groups... For people younger than 40, covid still killed less people than traffic accidents, overdoses, suicides etc. in my country. In the 85yo+ group, the story is a bit different.

Interestingly enough, most of the covid restrictions affected the young the most, while the old were mostly unaffected (tehnically they were all affected the same, but most old people are at home and in beds when curfews started).

[nicoburns]

> less people than traffic accidents, overdoses, suicides

Unless it's much less that doesn't mean much given that those are usually the largest killers of young people.

[ajsnigrutin]

Well yeah, but you have to put things in perspective... we took away basic human rights (movement, assembly, relatively even speech), to save less people than if we banned driving for <40yo. Even with the vaccines, and the passive forcing of vaccinations (eg. limiting stuff you can do unless vaccinated or tested daily), most of the services where you needed the vaccine/test were used by the young people (shopping malls, cinemas, etc.), and not old people (who stereotipically just go to normal stores, pharmacy and a doctor).

Just the number of extra suicides due to curfews was probably higher than the death rates in those age groups.

In comparison, in total (so all age groups, including the 85yo+), we had more cigarette related deaths in those two years than of covid, and we still sell cigarettes pretty much everywhere.

[nicoburns]

No, we did that to save the much higher number of people that would have been affected if we didn't impose restriction at the peaks. How much higher those numbers would have been is of course debatable. But given the exponential nature of spread, one assumes many more people would have been infected. And running out of hospital capacity to treat people would obviously have made deaths much worse.

Cigarettes are very different in that mostly affect the person smoking (in many countries we do indeed ban smoking in enclosed public places).

[cas14655]

There is literally no reason or evidence that think that the restrictions had any effect at all let alone a significant one worth the trade offs. If for some reason you are allergic to Sweden you can compare England Winter 2022 with Germany, or Scotland or Wales. Or Germany to Switzerland after Feb, 16th 2022 when they dropped their measures. Or Florida with Cali. It didn't do anything. I am sorry but it's time to learn the truth.

[bonzini]

You cannot compare the effects of restrictions on a vaccinated population to the effects on an unvaccinated one.

Restrictions were not introduced to "save" people, in such a way that you could restrict the lockdowns to the more vulnerable elderly population. Such a lockdown would have to be draconian (China-style).

Rather, restrictions were introduced (except for Australia and various countries in Asia which had zero case policy) to curb the growth in the occupation of hospital beds before the hospitals were full. Up until the introduction of vaccines and more contagious variants (Delta/Omicron) there were clear effects on Rt from the introduction and lifting of restrictions. Reduction of the reproduction rate cannot be achieved with a lockdown only of >60 year old people, since (like vaccination) the effect is inversely proportional to the amount of people not being locked down.

[cas14655]

I am not doing that at all. Switzerland for example has similar vax rates to Germany and I'd bet that Flordia is similar to Cali. You can even compare before any vaccinations and it's the same picture.

The reasons given for lockdown were ever shifting. Just very recently German Health Minister Karl Lauterach said we have to keep measures because 200 people a day die of Coronavirus and that's just too many.

> Up until the introduction of vaccines and more contagious variants (Delta/Omicron) there were clear effects on Rt from the introduction and lifting of restrictions.

Where, when, how? Even the very first lockdown in Germany happened when R was already <1. That used to be on the RKIs (our CDC) website.

What I don't understand is that I have to keep coming with facts (and still get censored) and you (the pro-lockdowners) can just keep doing argument by false assertions without showing any data whatsoever.