Fine - here's a reference for you. I didn't include any previously because I thought this was well known. It's for the UK because the UK has some data sources that are survey based and independent of how much people choose to test/when:

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/1-in-15-have-covid-in-...

"Prof Spector: While COVID cases continue to soar to all-time highs, the rate of increase is showing signs of slowing down."

That was for the end of March. ONS survey tracks similarly and shows numbers heading back up to the prior peak already achieved in March. The page has some useful graphs that put it in perspective and show the scale of the problem.

It's matched by anecdata from the people around me. In the past few weeks most of my friends have reported getting COVID. It's just a cold so it puts them in bed with lemsips for a few days, not a big deal, but the massive incidence rates are very noticeable. One friend said he got COVID and had to cancel some meetings, but two were already cancelled by the other party for the exact same reason. That sort of thing hasn't happened before and for some of them, it's their first time. So it feels correct that infection rates are off the charts. Multiple perspectives yield the same answer.

You can't have it both ways though - covid cases soaring to all time highs AND claiming the measures we had in place to attempt to contain infection previously weren't working at all. FWIW I agree many governments haven't done a great job of managing covid over the last 2-3 years, and providing funding for vaccine research and organising/ subsidizing distribution is obviously the most successful policy that's been pursued. But there are huge discrepancies between countries/states with governments that took the business of pandemic control seriously and those without. Once this is all truly over hopefully some good meta- studies can be done that help us understand which policies are the most effective, particularly in the period before vaccines are available/ effective.

I see why you may think this but look at the timings. E.g. in the UK the restrictions were mostly removed in the middle of last year. Cases actually fell sharply once the remaining rules were removed.

The increase in cases this year is being driven by a mix of Omicron and vaccine imprinting. It's not related to restrictions. If it were the latter you'd see changes in policy and changes in cases line up very closely as the serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 is only a few days.

"Once this is all truly over hopefully some good meta- studies can be done that help us understand which policies are the most effective"

Oh it's been done many times already. You aren't aware of the studies and meta-studies because they don't get reported on. They don't get reported because what they show is that everything that's been tried has failed. The media, being highly complicit in pushing restrictions on people and heavily dependent upon public sector 'expertise' for giving their stories credibility, will not report on this failure.

If you want to get a flavour of it, reserve a block of a few hours and then go flick through the archives of some non mainstream anti-lockdown sites like dailysceptic.org, where they do report such things. You'll find a bunch of studies that amount to "we looked at all the data and found no correlations between stringency of policy and outcomes".

For example, excess mortality in Sweden in 2020 (which should have been very high according to the epidemiologists due to lack of restrictions) was zero for under 75s. And if you count from the start, excess death overall (all ages) is the same as for Denmark, which had much harsher restrictions. If you examine all the data simultaneously using statistical techniques you get the same null result.

If your best evidence is that from "non mainstream anti-lockdown sites" then I'll remain on the fence until I see something there's good reason to have faith in.

Plenty of countries avoided the horror scenes seen in others, and I'm very glad to have lived in one of the former, even if many of the restrictions introduced were unjustifiably harsh (and I argued against many of them at the time).

Why? Do you think they're less reliable or science-oriented than outlets like the BBC? It's the opposite: they are more reliable and much more science based. The authors there read research papers and write articles based on what those papers actually say, not what people in power wish they said.

As a consequence you should have more faith in them, not less. Regardless, ignore the contents of the articles themselves and go direct to the sources, if you wish.

Also consider: your refusal to go outside establishment media is exactly why you aren't aware of any of the studies or meta-studies that have been done on effectiveness of counter-measures. You're literally wishing in public for information that already exists, but the only people who are willing to cover such news are those who aren't conflicted by prior pro-lockdown stances.

I found papers examining excess mortality and the comparison between Sweden and similar countries - and while it's somewhat surprising that it appears to be the case that it's only among those aged 70 and over that higher levels of excess mortality have been observed in Sweden, it certainly doesn't show restrictions weren't justified or effectual. Aside from the lives lost (plenty of 70 yos have another decade or so of productive and fulfilling life to lead), the impact on healthcare workers having to deal with the extra load of hospitalisations etc. can't just be dismissed out of hand (my partner worked as a nurse occasionally attending to covid patients in aged care homes here and despite our case numbers staying relatively contained, the impact was traumatic for many of her co-workers who were fulfilling that role full time). Further, it's still too early to be certain covid among younger people won't affect excess mortality in the coming decades. It's already the case that a percentage of those who survived nasty bouts of covid are suffering reduced quality of life as a result.

That article's dated March 31st 2022, and it correlates with the ourworldindata chart I posted above, which also shows a big decline since.

And, if you do some research among reputable sources on vaccinated vs unvaccinated hospitalization and death rates, you'll find a significant pattern there.

The graph you posted is affected by the end of mandatory testing, which is why you now need survey results. Mandatory testing acted as a sort of very poorly controlled "survey" because people couldn't opt out, but now testing is done almost entirely at home using LFTs without results being reported, you need a recruitment survey approach.

In the UK there was a decline after March 2022 but now, as I said, it is heading back up again and has nearly reached the same peak as previously:

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time

2022 is showing much higher peaks than other years when you use data sources not affected by the collapse in testing levels.

"vaccinated vs unvaccinated hospitalization and death rates, you'll find a significant pattern there."

I think in many countries the hospitalization rate for vaccinated/unvaccinated now matches the underlying proportions, i.e. no effect on hospitalizations or deaths any longer (and possibly never, due to how the data was being distorted by various factors previously, but that's a harder case to prove due to government data secrecy).