In the early days lockdown might have appeared to be the best move but that is because everyone was guessing and we had no solid evidence. Now we have a considerable body of evidence and the "lockdown or bust" dichotomy is no longer sustainable.

Because the virus is novel, this is likely as bad as it gets. The majority of cases are asymptomatic and the most common symptoms are not pneumonia, headache, or respiratory arrest. The most common symptoms are no symptoms. The policy response to the pandemic was driven by the modelling of Covid and not other factors, and the modelling has been wrong on other epidemics and doesn't take into account anything else. Hence, it has been plagued by faulty assumptions and bad data. The data was biased heavily in favour of severe cases. The R number was an assumption and output of the models and was not known. Those models are the basis for policy informing the decision to lockdown and they are based on forecasts and predictions we now know to be inaccurate. Those epidemological models had nothing to say about how the health systems could cope or adapt. It looks like it adapted quickly and hasn't been overwhelmed nor likely to be. That cannot be a justification for keeping a lockdown, and the burden is squarely on those who want to lockdown to give solid evidence that health systems will be overwhelmed, not horror stories that they might be.


Believe it or not, we don't even know if the lockdown is working. It might seem that way as cases decline with the lockdown but IMO this is a fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The flattening curves could just as easily be explained by the way the virus reaches equilibrium with the human hosts. An evolutionary view suggests the virus mutates rapidly and has a tendency to mutate into less virulent forms, and these forms predominating. It might actually impede this desirable effect to maintain lockdowns as asymptomatic spread of the virus is a good thing; it means the virus becomes more mild more quickly and this could be what's contributing to the flattening curves. The virus without the lockdown will naturally become milder and combined with herd immunity, will settle at a lower death rate with mild fluctuations from year to year, much like the flu, and something we could easily live with and adapt to.


In short, there is no good argument for putting anyone back into strict lockdown or forced vaccination for any non-risk group. Put high risk groups into lockdown, perhaps, and let the rest of us return to our lives.


Thoughts and discussion welcome.

Bro the National Institute of Public Health put out a study on Pub Med proving that a symptomatic cases don't spread corona virus.

The whole thing is a scam.

Link

You’re not wrong, OP. Still a *******, but not wrong.

But you can’t use reason and logic against these leftist panic-cels. They only understand soy-fueled emotion. They can read every single word of your post but their mental gymnastics will contort it into, “Let old people and children die LOL!”