OK, here are the facts: Strict lockdowns (like in France, what was done here was a joke) do reduce virus circulation to near zero, as long as they are carried out.
When strict lockdowns are relaxed, even a little, explosive transmission follows.
Strict lockdowns harm businesses, harm individuals, and harm children. The cost of strict lockdowns is very high.
In a political system where voting is allowed, strict lockdowns are not feasible for prolonged periods. France could only tolerate theirs for nine weeks. The US never locked down in the European sense.
BOTTOM LINE: Whether or not the cost of prolonged strict lockdowns is proportionate to the harms caused by widespread virus circulation is a political, not a scientific, question.
‘(like in France, what was done here was a joke)’
I’m sure that the many business owners, their families and their employees that will have to find something else to do with their lives would appreciate your idea of a ‘joke’...
“BOTTOM LINE: Whether or not the cost of prolonged strict lockdowns is proportionate to the harms caused by widespread virus circulation is a political, not a scientific, question.”
True. If we had a nightmare pandemic on our hands with millions dropping like flies, there would be no question that restrictions are necessary to limit deaths.
Determining when a pandemic is “deadly enough” to warrant the restriction of all citizens and how early to begin restrictions is purely a subjective/political decision.