3 ms·

Well, the insane thing to me here, is exactly that. Every country immediately jumped onto the lockdown bandwagon, presumably because of peer-pressure, to avoid

Well, the insane thing to me here, is exactly that. Every country immediately jumped onto the lockdown bandwagon, presumably because of peer-pressure, to avoid being shamed. We jumped into this and sacrificed fundamental freedoms without being able to quantify what the short, medium and long-term consequences of a lockdown would be, or how long we'd need to stay into lockdown. I think it's quite possible that the medicine could be worse than the disease, but that discussion hasn't even been had.

jodrellblank 6y ago
> "Every country immediately jumped onto the lockdown bandwagon" Sweden had no lockdown; The Lancet editor, a member of SAGE and the UK's former Health Secretary all said the UK lockdown was late and cost many lives for being late. Italy locked down on 9th March, Singapore on 7th April, Kuwait on 10th May, Bhutan on 11th August. It's not every country, it wasn't all at the same time, and it definitely wasn't immediate - e.g. within a few days of Wuhan's first lockdown on 23rd January. > "presumably because of peer-pressure, to avoid being shamed." Presumably because of a global disease pandemic. > "I think it's quite possible that the medicine could be worse than the disease, but that discussion hasn't even been had." It's been had a lot, months and months of it. Committees of medics, researchers, policy advisors, economists, politicians, civil servants, have debated it, Twitter threads have argued it, newspapers have written about it, it's being discussed right here in this thread on HN.