| Lockdowns were sold to the people as something that would stop the spread. If you can get every infected person to infect less than one other person on average, you can stop the spread of an infectious disease completely. At least in theory. There are two variables here. How infectious the disease is and which percentage of the population can isolate themselves at home without society breaking down. If everybody stays home you don't have hospitals, you don't have electricity, nobody picks up the garbage, and people will go hungry. Needless to say, that doesn't work. So what percentage of people still need to go to work? And it turns out you need a lot of people to work. From elderly care to daycare, from hospitals to supermarkets and their entire supply chain. And those people will inevitably get sick and infect their family and so the spread continues. And how infectious is covid? Very, and variants increasingly so. Which means you can use measures to slow down a disease like covid, but you have no chance of stopping it completely. And that's something some governments refused to accept, and they enacted a ton of erratic and ineffective countermeasures in a desperate attempt to do something impossible, instead of taking a more measured approach focused on slowing down the spread and increasing hospital capacity. Some people will insist that government policy was in fact reasonable and measured, but it really wasn't. Deutsche Bahn still required masking in January. This year. 2023. I kid you not. It's totally absurd. |
No, I do not think so. The curve in "flatten the curve" was referred to the daily number of cases, and the impact it's growth had on saturating health care services. Lockdowns hindered the spread so that services could be able to respond to the daily inflow of new cases.
> If everybody stays home you don't have hospitals, you don't have electricity, nobody picks up the garbage, and people will go hungry.
This is a totally disingenuous and completely wrong strawman, and one that springs either from intentional ignorance or outright bad faith.
No, you don't lock people up and expect everyone to stay in house arrest. You are pretending that the whole concept of "essential workers" didn't existed, let alone was a central point of lockdowns. People were arguing if occupation X or Y should or should not be classified as an essential worker explicitly because that meant either the workers should or should not stay at home.