Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions

Re:Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions by hunglee2 on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @03:33PM (#36217980)

Lockdowns would've 'worked' if everyone did it, hard and fast, at the same time. They obviously become less effective if the initial spread is not suppressed, then it becomes whack-a-mole. A lot of possible pandemics have been stopped this way, we just don't know about them because they were stopped.

The concept is no different putting in fire breaks to stop a forest fire - isolate the infected, infection burns itself out, end of pandemic without need for global vaccination campaign.

Lockdowns are a good idea at the beginning, bad idea in the middle, inconsequential idea at the end

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions by dadjoker on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @04:09PM (#36218451)

There was nothing inconsequential about their disastrous effects, especially on kids, with zero benefit.

The "cure" was worse than the disease.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions by hunglee2 on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @02:45AM (#36223656)

yes, inconsequential was the wrong word. Ineffective was better. Thanks

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions by dent9876543 on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @04:25AM (#36224335)

They’re only a good idea if you have an exit strategy that is feasible.

We didn’t have one. We didn’t even seem to have an infeasible strategy for a long time! And as a consequence, lockdown became performative rather than strategic.

If we’d have locked down hard enough, and if infection had fully died away without meaningful transmission to animals, then we’d have been able to unlock.

But we didn’t lock down hard, and probably we realistically could not have done so.

[ Parent | on HN ]