Do you think that the fact that many places have the pandemic under control with far less restrictive measures mean the lockdown was pointless?

I would say no for two reasons:

First of all, viruses spread exponentially (well OK they're technically logistic but for that pattern to be predominant you have to approach herd immunity but coronavirus didn't infect anywhere near close to 70% of the population in any major city) so the more of a virus there is, the faster it spreads. As such, if the lockdown got the number of infected down to a level that the spread could be contained by other means.
Do you think that the fact that many places have the pandemic under control with far less restrictive measures mean the lockdown was pointless?
But it is true that in some places, there are less restrictive measures than before with a similar case load which might lead someone to argue that we could have just used the approach we are currently employing now like social distancing and mask mandates. But this is talking when you have the benefit of hindsight. We didn't know that when the viral outbreak occurred and the elephant in the room that people who claim the lockdown was unnecessary are ignoring is that we now know what strategies work in terms of containing the virus BECAUSE we've learned what is and isn't effective by studying the impact that they had on viral propagation during the lockdown. We only know how to contain the virus now thanks to the lockdown so that argument is a nonsensical one based entirely on hindsight bias.
Do you think that the fact that many places have the pandemic under control with far less restrictive measures mean the lockdown was pointless?
Do you think that the fact that many places have the pandemic under control with far less restrictive measures mean the lockdown was pointless?
1
2
Add Opinion