[michaelmrose]

Lockdowns were not after very very early numbers ever based on lies or fearmongering. The fatality rate we observed in the developed world was based on bad cases being able to receive prompt treatment.

Had it expanded faster it risked not only infecting a larger portion of the population pre-vaccination but also seeing more people who would have been salvageable with treatment dying innecessarily.

Pretending we could have experienced the death rate we did in our experience whilst also adopting a different strategy is farcical reasoning.

[pnt12]

Also, in my country, more hospitalizations would be quite severe, as the hospitals are already short staffed. There were also not enough masks for everyone to mitigate it.

I think a lot of anti-lock down claims are too simplistic. There were too many unknowns, and there's little consensus about the ideal outcomes.

(I'm a bit biased: I was able to do remote work and move to my parents house, which is quite spacious and near the woods, so I could go outside a bit - so it didn't affect my finances or mental health too much)