Sure. But there are also some scientists who think the lockdown didn’t work, or only work really fast and hard. Or only work in dense populations but are useless in sparse ones. The Democrats don’t have a monopoly on truth, they’re not omniscient. They just had a different idea of how they wanted to respond based (like every other politician) on what they thought would sell well to their electorate.
Who knows what they word have actually done in power. I hate to break it to you, but politicians lie - it’s kind of their job.
A bit unfortunate you’re getting down voted for a more nuanced take. The jury is still out on large scale lockdowns. China managed to control the spread by aggressive contact tracing and testing, resorting to lockdowns as last resort. And it worked fairly well for some time.
According to our estimates, the policy intervention saved 866,350–1,711,150 lives (4,886,214–9,650,886 quality-adjusted life-years), while mortality attributable to the economic downturn was 57,922–245,055 lives (2,093,811–8,858,444 life-years). We conclude that the number of lives saved by the spring-summer lockdowns and other COVID-19-mitigation was greater than the number of lives potentially lost due to the economic downturn. However, the net impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy is ambiguous
The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.
a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5–10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be.
Biomedical evidence from the early months of the pandemic suggests that lockdowns were associated with a reduced viral reproductive rate, but that less restrictive measures also had a similar effect. Lockdowns are associated with reduced mortality in epidemiological modelling studies but not in studies based on empirical data from the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological research supports the proposition that lengthy lockdowns may exacerbate stressors such as social isolation and unemployment that have been shown to be strong predictors of falling ill if exposed to a respiratory virus. Studies at the economic level of analysis points to the possibility that deaths associated with economic harms or underfunding of other health issues may outweigh the deaths that lockdowns save, and that the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for treating other conditions.
Sure. But there are also some scientists who think the lockdown didn’t work, or only work really fast and hard. Or only work in dense populations but are useless in sparse ones. The Democrats don’t have a monopoly on truth, they’re not omniscient. They just had a different idea of how they wanted to respond based (like every other politician) on what they thought would sell well to their electorate.
Who knows what they word have actually done in power. I hate to break it to you, but politicians lie - it’s kind of their job.
A bit unfortunate you’re getting down voted for a more nuanced take. The jury is still out on large scale lockdowns. China managed to control the spread by aggressive contact tracing and testing, resorting to lockdowns as last resort. And it worked fairly well for some time.
deleted by creator
The downvotes are par for the course, if I was interested in a popularity contest I wouldn’t have commented on a thread about Fauci!
You’re right on lockdowns. The jury is out, but most seem to think them a mistake, or mistakenly applied.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0261759
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9295
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778/full
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395