>The problem with the lockdown is that we cannot know what would’ve happened without it. Now was it too extreme, for too long? Probably. Again we can’t know the

>The problem with the lockdown is that we cannot know what would’ve happened without it. Now was it too extreme, for too long? Probably. Again we can’t know the counter factual. Actually, while we can't be precise about the number of deaths that would have occurred from doing nothing, we can use the number of cases as a proxy for that. Since the case fatality rate (CFR) is correlated with the number of cases, it's actually a pretty good proxy. As to whether or not restrictions have been "too extreme" or gone on "too long," I'd say that's a function of the number of cases reported in specific areas. In some places where there has been widespread testing/tracing, lockdowns have been eased when the spread has been significantly reduced. In fact, NY state[0] sets specific case rates (IIRC, >3% rolling average over seven days) in very small and specific geographical areas as a determinant of the need for specific, localized restrictions and increased testing/tracing to limit the spread of the virus. [0] https://forward.ny.gov/ https://forward.ny.gov/