In this case, reading first the end of the page helps understanding the position of the authors: "Clarification added after publication: the authors have colla

In this case, reading first the end of the page helps understanding the position of the authors: "Clarification added after publication: the authors have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay and in the accompanying sidebar." There is also obvious bias in the content of the article, which I guess is explainable by being an "opinion" where I guess the authors can't be told by the editors to change the content with the goal of reducing the bias -- I guess by definition they are expected to be "opinionated." The article is written in the tone of questioning if the government mandated measures work at all and published exactly as we can observe the measures explicitly working across Europe, sinking the numbers of the registered cases: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-07-29..latest&country=GBR~DEU~FRA~CZE~ITA&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_cases&pickerSort=desc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS... It should also be pointed to the fact that all the European states didn't decide to introduce the measurements for the sake of it but because their health systems reached the point of being overwhelmed, which for some of European countries would be the second time. In all these countries, the "dilemma" as presented in the article is simply false: all of them first waited hoping that the measurements wouldn't be necessary and introduced them practically as they had no other acceptable choice. The "hard" lockdown first time worked in Italy in the Spring, allowing for very low case count during the Summer there.