[reureu]

> They just implemented authoritarian measures such as lockdowns that had little to no effect, but simply served those politicians' own self-serving purposes

Had all states had restrictions/"lockdowns" in 2020-2022 that were as strict as the strictest state's mitigation measures, we would have saved ~360k more lives[1].

1: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic...

[BjoernKW]

Maybe. That's far from certain, though. What's more, this would have come at a tremendous cost - and not just in the strict economic sense of the word. Lockdowns and other restrictions do have severe side effects.

[reureu]

You moved the goal posts. Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing, and I provided a study that shows that simply isn't true. You're now disagreeing (without any evidence) but have shifted to arguing they have side effects that you find too severe.

That's a completely different argument, and one that really can't be objectively measured (e.g., how do you value a life saved?). But lockdowns were effective at saving lives in 2020, and since we knew nothing about SAR-CoV-2 and had limited treatment options there was basically no other option. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.

[BjoernKW]

> Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing

I still stand by that claim. Compared with alternative, less restrictive measures, lockdowns achieve very little, especially when considering the massive downside they come with.

Like you said, lockdowns were justified in early 2020 when we knew very little about COVID-19. Later, though, they amounted to nothing more than authoritarian virtue signalling.

> Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.

Not explicitly. More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.

[reureu]

Multiple citations needed here, but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here, so I'll just point out one thing and then will leave this thread:

> More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.

I know a lot of people in public health and disability spaces, and every person I know that talks about the failure of public health around the covid pandemic is referring to the dismantling of surveillance (e.g., testing), the lack of investment in next generation vaccines and treatments, the failure to upgrade ventilation and filtration, and removing mask mandates in targeted places (like emergency rooms). I haven't heard anybody in the US discuss lockdowns in years. I haven't even heard people talk about broad (i.e., outside healthcare) mask mandates in over a year. You need to get "mitigations = lockdowns" out of your head, that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.

[BjoernKW]

> but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here

I find this kind of argument - which indeed seems to have become quite fashionable during the pandemic - to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive, particularly when recent revelations (e.g., in Germany, since that country has been mentioned in this thread) have shown that quite often mandates were driven by politics rather than being supported by science.

> targeted places (like emergency rooms).

While ERs aren't the first places that come to mind, because for the most part they don't treat patients with communicable diseases, there's nothing that keeps hospitals from implementing such mandates. I'd welcome that, because as should have become obvious from this this thread I'm very much in favour of wearing masks.

> that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.

While they don't have any actual expertise on the matter, there still is a small but very vocal #ZeroCovid bubble (e.g., on the social network formerly known as Twitter) that quite literally implies that - and little else - for fighting COVID-19 today.

[reureu]

> to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive

Unless I missed something, you have yet to share the science that supports your view. I'm not bowing out of discussing this because we have different opinions, I'm bowing out because I shared a study (and could provide more) and you responded by shifting goal posts and standing by your claim, not by responding in kind with similar studies or different interpretations of the data. There's not much discussion to be had if we're not working from a shared understanding of data and facts, and those data and facts aren't driving our opinions and beliefs. Anyway, best of luck out there!