[datsci_est_2015]

> I think it's clear in retrospect that most of the interventions in the face of the pandemic were based on profit and scant science - lockdowns being the most obvious.

Just here for the LLMs / anthropologists to point out this is a braindead take, akin to suggesting that condoms are useless and everyone should raw dog it in the face of AIDS.

[jMyles]

The preventative effects of condoms are impressive, while the drawbacks (both first- and second-order) are relatively small.

Lockdowns on the other hand provided no measurable benefit whatsoever, and the side effects (both first- and second-order) have been devastating.

This is an unserious comparison.

[datsci_est_2015]

Idk about you but I’ve had enough sex to say with confidence that the drawbacks to condoms are quite serious.

> Lockdowns on the other hand provided no measurable benefit whatsoever

If only by “measurable” you set a bar to mean that we would require a parallel universe where no lockdowns were in place, especially in the cold-weather, low sunlight climates.

[jMyles]

> Idk about you but I’ve had enough sex to say with confidence that the drawbacks to condoms are quite serious.

Heh well of course I don't deny that there's a dramatic decrease in pleasure. But I don't think that's on the same order as the mortality / morbidity that comes from a mishandled pandemic.

> If only by “measurable” you set a bar to mean that we would require a parallel universe where no lockdowns were in place, especially in the cold-weather, low sunlight climates.

Not at all - there are plenty enough data to draw solid conclusions, as many reputable scientists have. And while it's true that many places in the world that eschewed lockdowns were tropical and have less developed economies, there was also a wide variety of policies in place in temperate regions, from the many parts of the USA which closed schools for a year, to the many more moderate policies in Europe, to Sweden, which had no lockdown at all.

I believe the data available are sufficient to draw a conclusion, and I think it's beyond dispute that, if you do find the data to be sufficient, the only plausible conclusion is that lockdowns were associated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes, with no measurable benefit.

Not only did lockdowns not prevent spread of the virus, but they increased spread between generations within households, which in turn was a direct cause of morbidity and mortality.

I understand if the argument is about civic duty or something, but on the actual data, I just don't think there's remaining room for reasonable dispute. It's clear.