I guess the point is that if lockdowns are ineffective, you are going to reach the overload point regardless. The fact that it did not happen means that I would not have happened anyway.

You’re treating healthcare overload as a binary condition when it is not. It matters how much your healthcare system is overloaded. If the system is 10% over capacity, then 1 out of 11 people aren’t getting proper treatment and run an increased risk of dying. If your system is 50% over capacity then only 2 out of 3 people are getting proper treatment. Neither is great, but they’re objectively not the same levels of risk or outcome.

Even if lockdowns are ineffective at preventing overload, it doesn’t follow that they can’t reduce the severity of that overload, or that the outcome would be the same either way.

That's quite a bit of stretch to say. There are thousands scenarios where medical system would collapse completely and people would either make it on their own or die. With secondary effect of everybody else with life-threatening condition dying too.

Would it be end of humankind? Nope, but I sure as hell don't want to be part of such selfish civilization just that cashflow is maintained

> but I sure as hell don't want to be part of such selfish civilization just that cashflow is maintained

so where does pharma with no liability, running their own trials and effectively being handed blank checks during the pandemic fit into this?

In the UK at least, you can see really clearly where lockdowns start and cases & hospital admissions drop dramatically from their peak to really low. Deaths went from >1000 to <50 per day. And when lockdowns ended they went right back up again.

> I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed

Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway.

I think there's also a strong argument that lockdown ends up decreasing the time spent outdoors, which promotes spread.

> Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence.

"The thing you were trying to prevent didn't happen, therefore you didn't need to try to prevent it" is really curious reasoning. "It didn't happen, therefore it was because we did this things" is also a weak claim, but the reverse seems far sillier. Especially if you look at the hot spots where things got worst, like Italy or India. Instead of being glad we avoided that, we're whining that we had to do anything at all.

> His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway.

Again, this is a curious claim. If lockdown doesn't really change behavior, how can lockdown be responsible for the things it's being blamed for like isolation and economic impact? That is then the fault of the pandemic, and the natural behavior changes that resulted, instead!

Note how toilet paper was gone from grocery stores BEFORE any official action was taken.

If you're looking for a doomsday scenario, what's happening in India right now is probably the worst we've seen since the pandemic started. Essentially every hospital in every major city is full and there are patients dying outside.

Yup. Having insufficient bed space and medical supplies will kill people that might otherwise have survived a Covid-19 infection.

Anything and everything must be done in each country to prevent the hospitals from filling up.

Was also looking real bad in Brazil a few weeks ago.

Still is. I expect Brazil to exceed the US death toll in about 100 days.

They've got a fundamentally different society and lockdown is a luxury policy that only rich nations (and people) can afford.

> They've got a fundamentally different society

You have to say more than this.

Didn't India also aggressively lock down in the beginning as well? Not sure what point the Op was trying to make here.