These are qualitative statements and there cannot ever be a definite answer. I don't think there is scientific consensus at all and that we are currently analyz

These are qualitative statements and there cannot ever be a definite answer. I don't think there is scientific consensus at all and that we are currently analyzing effects of certain measures. That can take years. I certainly do have the impression that "science" tried to consolidate opinion and not by scientific means at all. Of course most doctors will tend to err on the side of caution especially if they don't have information about a new form of viral threat. The degree of efficiency of mask might be in question but it certainly is not zero. That is exceedingly unlikely. But I am not sure the author makes that statement. Ultimately they were ineffective to control the spread. Fair point, but the primary goal was to delay infections to not crash health systems which might or might not have been a sensible choice. > The draconian measures This is already a fairly unscientific statement in any case and there certainly is a lot of room to criticise the author. > with no useful information Here I disagree. Any form of opposition is valuable because we had a far too much consolidated "official opinions" and some of it has been proven wrong later. No harm done with someone swimming in the other direction. On the contrary. And I think there was a lot of precedent to fast track vaccines and side effects were neglected. It didn't hit too many people but it did affect people.