Lockdowns Are Probably Permanent Because Politicians Have Painted Themselves Into A Corner and Don't Know What Else To Do

 Gee, ya think?

There wasn’t time to gather that sort of evidence: Faced with a poorly understood and rapidly spreading pathogen, they prioritized saving lives.

Five months later, the evidence suggests lockdowns were an overly blunt and economically costly tool. They are politically difficult to keep in place for long enough to stamp out the virus. The evidence also points to alternative strategies that could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost. As cases flare up throughout the U.S., some experts are urging policy makers to pursue these more targeted restrictions and interventions rather than another crippling round of lockdowns...

Yet at the outset, their goals were unclear, a confusion aggravated by the multitude of terms used. Officials sometimes said their goal was “bending” or “flattening the curve,” which originally meant spreading infections over time so the daily peak never overwhelmed hospitals. At other times they described their aims as “mitigation” or “containment” or “suppression,” often interchangeably.

“There have been few attempts to truly define the goal, and partly it’s because policy makers and epidemiologists haven’t thought well enough about the vocabulary to define what they mean or want,” said Dr. Mina, the Harvard epidemiologist.

We've long since left the reality of science! and are operating purely in the realm of politics and "doing something".  The lockdowns have been "overly blunt and costly".

Were the unintended but entirely predictable consequences of lockdowns justified?

When policymakers across the country decided to “lock down” in response to the March outbreak of the novel coronavirus, they took a leap into the unknown. Not only did we know little about COVID-19 itself at that time, but we knew almost nothing about how shutting down nearly all of society would affect people.

Policymakers focused on their models predicting how lockdowns could help limit the spread of COVID-19; an important factor, to be sure. So, too, many acknowledged the negative economic ramifications of lockdowns. But in the months since, we’ve seen many other dire consequences stem from the unprecedented shutdown of society.

Future public health policy should take these four life-threatening unintended consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns into account.

If the press were ever truly interested in government mistakes, they need not look far for the biggest story of the century thus far.   Some might argue that the biggest mistake of the century so far was the belief in WMD in Iraq, but I've addressed that enough in the early years of this blog that I don't need to rehash it here.  Bottom line:  worldwide government responses to the 'rona were hamhanded, flawed, and not scientifically justified.  Freedom, including that to live your life and make a living, has been seriously curtailed around the world.  Do we live to do what government wants, or is government supposed to do what we want?

If, in trying to excuse the damage that's been done, someone were at least to admit that "mistakes were made", my response would be "No feces, detective."

Now fix the mistakes.  But they can't, because to do so they'd have to admit that they made mistakes.  Politicians don't do that.