|
|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
835 days ago
|
|
|
A lockdown is going to be controversial no matter what. Sides were chosen because almost any response would cause an economic slowdown, which looks bad for the party in power. They'd get no credit for lives saved. And if they had been right that it would vanish all by itself, like a flu season, they'd improve America's financial state compared to countries that took the economic hit. Once the sides were drawn, American polarization kicked in. There's no room for mere difference of opinion. The other side must be evil, stupid, and intent on destroying America. I'd argue that that's especially true for the party in power at the time, though you have to take that with a grain of salt since I'm on the opposite side. |
|
|
This always seemed rather optimistic. Flu rates are seasonal, and COVID could have been seasonal. But pandemic flus and particularly nasty flu strains also fade away because enough people either get them or get vaccinated that they are usually no longer so significant the following year. COVID lockdowns largely prevented this.
If the vaccines had worked anywhere near as well as an optimistic interpretation of the trials suggested, the lockdowns would probably have looked better in hindsight.
(Which isn’t to say that lockdowns didn’t have some value. If nothing else, they bought time for the vaccines to roll out and they may have contributed to a lot of people getting Omicron instead of earlier strains. It seems like Omicron was a decent amount less nasty.)