everyone talks about the death rate, but for survivors there's evidence of severe permanent damage in some cases.
Money is a bad metric but it does boil things down to one measure. I’m sure these aren’t measured the same way but the effects haven’t been similar. Flu $90b per year versus the covid cost of $16t.
I mean that miiiight have something to do with the fact that we basically ignore the flu despite tens of thousands of deaths every year. Whereas with Covid we collectively decided to shut down the entire world.
Some of those countries are "not sitting pretty right now" because they ended their lockdowns.
The answer is not "lockdowns don't really do any good." The answer is "don't prematurely end your lockdowns." Now that can be burdensome. You can do a middle ground (limited re-opening). That works too, but you have to be very careful and keep a close eye on case numbers and shut down totally as soon as cases ramp up. California tried to do that in the latest surge, but was a little late in implementing the newly stringent measures and even further So. Cal. "resisted" the newly stringent measures and are now suffering mightily.
True
>All of it is a “limited re-opening.”
Yes, but the issue is how limited was the limited re-opening. I live in the U.S., but ALL of my colleagues are in Europe. It's anecdotal, but my understanding is that the re-openings throughout EU were quite closer to the "unlimited" side than the "total lockdown" side of the spectrum.
>Perhaps respiratory viruses spread much more effectively in the winter versus the summer
The presence of an additional explanatory factor does not prove the absence of an alternative explanatory factor. They could both be true, and almost certainly are true. That is: lockdowns work; without lockdowns, you have Bergamo in Jan-Mar 2020 (mass death); COVID spreads better in winter.