I think it's important where they talk about shifting behaviors. We should have shut down high risk activities and encouraged low risk ones...but we shut those down too. Shutting the national parks was the dumbest thing ever and we knew that a few months into the pandemic.
Lockdown was also intended to be a bridge to mustering resources followed by targeted interventions. We didn't do that either. So why would we have a change in death? We had no increase in PPE, coordinated plans for resources, or testing spun up.
Also worth nothing this is all comers. We locked down in Texas and then released all restrictions and shot the moon...duh. yeah that doesn't do anything but hurt. You just delayed it by a month while hurting people economically and increasing other disease burden.
The whole country locked down as New York was getting hit. The Johns Hopkins article specifically talks about the first wave of all comers. And in that case we locked down prematurely in most places. The hurt of lockdown was absolutely greater than the disease...there weren't any cases. Was the new York lockdown more effective since they were actually in the midst of COVID19 burden? There are models that say it was effective but did increase other disease burden too. A net benefit with pros and cons.
People will read their headline and try to exaggerate it to whatever political meaning they seem to have here. But there's some real data to be gleened such as targeted shutdown like bar closings. But then could you minimize that impact with patios? Dunno. I just know there's now data that
@Hauler being in a bar until the last minute before lockdown means he is a terrible person. And old.
