There were people and even doctors back then saying they didn’t know it was a good idea.
There were people back then worried about how it would affect education, suicide attempts (this article!), and businesses, and whether the cure was worse than the problem.
These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. If they spoke on social media, say they want people to die and they are heartless. Once the vaccine comes out, lump them in with the anti-vaxxers.
The cure was worse than the problem. Except we got screwed and the problem remains.
That’s just flat out untrue, though. These views were widely aired at the time. It’s revisionist history to say they were censored. The government made a choice they didn’t agree with but that doesn’t mean they were silenced.
If you disagreed with the government you are called anti science (despite the policies having nothing to do with science) it belittled for wanting to kill grandma. Shoot people are still saying that.
Science is a process about learning from the world. These people (who are scientists themselves!) have disagreements about how scientists are doing science, and they are called "anti-scientific" as a result of disagreeing with their interpretation of science.
That's a direct "censor this guy" threat.
That kind of is why they said: that lockdowns were about the only reliable tool until we understood more, built out testing infrastructure, track and trace etc… it’s just that the government then didn’t do any of that.
> And maybe offer a split deal. Anyone who wants to lock down, go ahead, here’s some protections. Don’t want to lock down? Your body your choice.
Even a cursory look towards labor rights in the US would make it very clear it wouldn’t be “your body your choice”, it would be “want to keep your job? Turn up to work or you’re fired”.