It is absolutely worth continuously assessing whether the measures are necessary and what is and is not working, but that requires not throwing a huge number of people under the bus
People keep parroting this out of fear.
Go ahead and take your best guess about the percentage of people that this will happen to. Are you ok with lockdowns to save .001% of the population from this? I've asked questions like this before but never received a response. Any type of real debate is simple ignored and downvoted. All emotions, never any debate.
Fear brings more upvotes than facts. A scary story will get 100+ upvotes but this story only got 7:
Lungs damaged by coronavirus can repair themselves in three months (telegraph.co.uk)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/06/lungs-damaged-co...
The online fear factory is similar to the old school media fear factor but the online one is self perpetuating.
No. But that's a full 4 orders of magnitude off our best estimates of mortality which are around 1%. Do I support the limited lockdowns we've had, lasting only a few weeks, to allow breaking the exponential growth and not doubling our yearly mortality? Definitely yes.
It is better to get back to life as usual than to deal with Australia's, Britain's, and other countries' response that drastically reduced quality of life for people en masse in the name of saving a life or two.
Somehow, brutal lockdowns effect on people's lives is incomprehensible to people who spend most of their time in one room on a computer--what a surprise!
"Oh, suck it up, wear a mask, stay 6 feet apart, stay in your home, buy online, don't leave the country, and wait for a vaccine that will come, eventually."