[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.

[bonzini]

> The reasons given for lockdown were ever shifting

I agree that communication was awful all over the board and from both sides.

> Where, when, how?

Italy spring 2021. Note that in general I am talking about 2021 data not 2022. I wouldn't even call 2022 restrictions a lockdown, they are really more of a vaccination and mask mandate.

[cas14655]

> I agree that communication was awful all over the board

I appreciate the peace offering but you have to understand that, for me, this topic is deeply personal. I am not willing to let it go on "oh let's call it awful and move on". Maybe in the beginning there was an earnest motivation to avoid suffering but the rest of the time, the public was simply deceived if not down right gaslit.

As a general answer: Corona is seasonal depending on latitude and on northern latitude spring is the end of it's season. So no matter what you do, you get a decrease in cases anyway. But if you mean something else, please show me in detail.

The excuse for lack of evidence seems to so often boil down to "that wasn't true lockdown". However, the measures in 2022 followed the same logic as the early lockdowns and were justified with the same grab bag of reasons. For instance, in winter 2021/2022, in Germany, I wasn't allowed to do anything except shopping for essentials because I am not vaccinated. For me, it absolutely was exactly like lockdown: same restrictions, same reasons, same dire predictions what would happen without these measures.

So I want an explanation for why cases didn't "explode" in Switzerland when they dropped their measures 16th of Feb 2022, a full one and a half month ahead of Germany and why are cases now dropping like a rock in Germany three weeks after repealing most measures.