"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.
Anything and everything must be done in each country to prevent the hospitals from filling up.
You have to say more than this.
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.