I haven't read the specifics of the GBD, but isn't some of the "it was clearly quackery" confounded by:
1. In 2020 especially, and even now, the specifics of long covid and other side effects, as compared to other downsides of lockdowns on mental health/delayed treatments are hard to predict? We don't have the counterfactual of what would have been the 3-5-10 year implications of a multi-year lockdown.
2. Does the general directionality of that change in a world where it's obvious that global lockdown/elimination of covid wasn't feasible because there isn't some global government to impose it? As long as a large enough population wasn't going along with the elimination strategy, it makes it less viable and more costly for everyone else. If the "2 week lockdown and it all goes away" had happened, then absolutely that would have been right. If all of, say, Europe doesn't lock down and everywhere else does, then how long of a lockdown do you need in order to have it do anything, and at that length, what other major problems emerge?
At least personally, the point I somewhat gave up on elimination was when the first variants started emerging from South Africa and Europe. It seems like that's generally borne out too - I'd be curious what the infection/long covid rates in the more successfully locked down countries like New Zealand or Japan are at this point.
The west did not go for a strategy of elimination through lockdown. Rather, the strategy was to delay the spread, initially only so that the health care system could keep up, and later in the hope that vaccines would arrive in time to curb the brunt of it - as they did.
The GBD is easy to find and a short read (https://gbdeclaration.org/), it does not refer to any elimination strategy - instead it discusses the costs of "Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available".
I don't see any quackery in the GBD. (Which is not to say that they were right.)
Yea, for sure. Mostly responding to the OP more than stating what happened. I think we generally agree - for better or worse, most of the world decided on some limited strategy, which made the prospect of doing any sort of elimination essentially impossible. In that light, balancing whatever success at delaying infections vs. the downsides of being even partially locked down is a non-quack question in my mind.
I recall clearly, at the time, the first two weeks of lockdown. No one, anywhere, had a clue wtf was going on, except that some new virus was spreading like wildfire, that it spread before symptoms appeared, and it seemed like Italy had a crazy high death rate.
Blaming people with the knowledge of hindsight is just plain wrong.
Later lockdowns? Now that's a different conversation.
Quebecs lockdowns continued for 2 years and were far more draconian than the rest of North America.
As far as I understand this was mostly a factor of our public hospital systems being absolutely over capacity and the government doing whatever it could to keep up.
Needless to say I’ve since moved away to a region with a more functional health care system and that allows families to gather together as desired.
Yea, by october when the "maybe we shouldn't do a lockdown any more" talk was 6+ months in, it feels like it's clearly in the "there's a case to be made" zone.
I'm not too worried about a random sick deer in the middle of some forest infecting a whole bunch of humans. The worry with animals is that they could mutate the virus into something much more nasty. Especially in factory farm settings where animals aren't properly cared for and are packed in like sardines while covered in shit and open sores, and where workers who are also treated terribly could end up getting exposed.
Lockdowns could do a lot to reduce spread and protect people from infection in large population centers, but certain areas are basically breeding grounds for disease and even before covid they were a risk for things like antibiotic resistant bacteria. Ignoring them was always going to be a problem.
I brought up covid in animals because the original poster mentioned the elimination of covid in the context of lockdowns.
The fact that covid can move between animal and human populations would seem to mean that lockdowns for the purpose of elimination will not work. Eventually humans would be reinfected from animals - mice, rats, pets, etc.
This has perhaps already happened. There is dna evidence that omicron evolved in mice and then jumped back into humans [0].
On the idea of lockdowns to eliminate the virus:
> The coronavirus’ ability to infect so many different animals, and to spread within some of those populations, is worrying news: It means there’s virtually no chance the world will ever be rid of this particularly destructive coronavirus, scientists said [1].
It would be a bummer to be locked down for months or years in an effort to eliminate the virus, and have to deal with the negative repercussions of lockdowns during and afterwards, only for everyone to become reinfected again from animals, and the whole thing start up again.
My apologies if I misunderstood your reply. You did seem to have a different angle than the original post. I just don't get it when people mention lockdowns to eliminate covid, when such a thing isn't possible.
I'm not sure what to say about your concern that animals can evolve a more dangerous virus. That seems like it can go either way. Animal evolved variants can also be less dangerous, like omicron, which is a good thing. Also locked down humans could be more vulnerable to more dangerous variants, their immune systems not having any prior exposure. How can anyone be so sure lockdowns always help?
1. In 2020 especially, and even now, the specifics of long covid and other side effects, as compared to other downsides of lockdowns on mental health/delayed treatments are hard to predict? We don't have the counterfactual of what would have been the 3-5-10 year implications of a multi-year lockdown.
2. Does the general directionality of that change in a world where it's obvious that global lockdown/elimination of covid wasn't feasible because there isn't some global government to impose it? As long as a large enough population wasn't going along with the elimination strategy, it makes it less viable and more costly for everyone else. If the "2 week lockdown and it all goes away" had happened, then absolutely that would have been right. If all of, say, Europe doesn't lock down and everywhere else does, then how long of a lockdown do you need in order to have it do anything, and at that length, what other major problems emerge?
At least personally, the point I somewhat gave up on elimination was when the first variants started emerging from South Africa and Europe. It seems like that's generally borne out too - I'd be curious what the infection/long covid rates in the more successfully locked down countries like New Zealand or Japan are at this point.