The problem with blaming the response, is that a strong response with very strict lockdowns is sometimes a result of a weak early response. That is, if you hesi

The problem with blaming the response, is that a strong response with very strict lockdowns is sometimes a result of a weak early response. That is, if you hesitate with doing lockdowns, you'll eventually be forced to do a much more severe and longer lasting lockdown anyway. A weak response will also overrun the hospitals, which makes it difficult for them to diagnose and treat other diseases. Norway has had no significant excess mortality through the entire pandemic. In recent months it has been well below 0%. It has been consistently been better than Sweden, which has had less restrictions and a similar culture. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores?country=BRA~NOR~USA~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores... The restrictions in Norway has been less severe than many places with higher excess mortality. Why is that? My theory is that Norwegians have been very compliant with advice and restrictions set by the government, and the government has been pro-active with enacting restrictions. This has helped contain and suppress the spread of the virus to smaller geographical regions, so that other areas can avoid lockdowns. And it reduces the duration of outbreaks, meaning you can lift restrictions again more quickly. So my theory is that fighting against restrictions is extremely counter-productive. It only serves to create a culture of ignoring government advice, and makes politicians hesitate to enact necessary restrictions early, with the end result being more restrictions in total, not less.