> Then the correct response should have been for experts to say they didn’t know, instead of saying the lockdowns were the solution.

That kind of is why they said: that lockdowns were about the only reliable tool until we understood more, built out testing infrastructure, track and trace etc… it’s just that the government then didn’t do any of that.

> And maybe offer a split deal. Anyone who wants to lock down, go ahead, here’s some protections. Don’t want to lock down? Your body your choice.

Even a cursory look towards labor rights in the US would make it very clear it wouldn’t be “your body your choice”, it would be “want to keep your job? Turn up to work or you’re fired”.

I’m can understand that, but here’s the thing that still grids my gears.

There were people and even doctors back then saying they didn’t know it was a good idea.

There were people back then worried about how it would affect education, suicide attempts (this article!), and businesses, and whether the cure was worse than the problem.

These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. If they spoke on social media, say they want people to die and they are heartless. Once the vaccine comes out, lump them in with the anti-vaxxers.

The cure was worse than the problem. Except we got screwed and the problem remains.

> These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television.

That’s just flat out untrue, though. These views were widely aired at the time. It’s revisionist history to say they were censored. The government made a choice they didn’t agree with but that doesn’t mean they were silenced.

A lot of them were silenced. A lot of scientists were also afraid to speak out against the status quo.

If you disagreed with the government you are called anti science (despite the policies having nothing to do with science) it belittled for wanting to kill grandma. Shoot people are still saying that.

I see this perspective a lot and it baffles me. If you say something and in return are called "anti-science" you are not being "silenced". You are hearing the reaction to the words that you spoke. We're well on the path towards "censorship" being a word that means absolutely nothing.

Yes, you are being silenced, because what does "anti-science" imply?

Science is a process about learning from the world. These people (who are scientists themselves!) have disagreements about how scientists are doing science, and they are called "anti-scientific" as a result of disagreeing with their interpretation of science.

That's a direct "censor this guy" threat.

It stops being "your body" when you're walking around being a vector. I have to get groceries. At my last job, I had to go into the office. Regardless of my risk model, there are reasons I cannot stay home. You are making the decision for everyone around you, and whenever I see someone indoors exercising their freedom to not wear a mask, I wish they could see the cost of that "freedom".

The compromise would have been to actually enforce the lockdown so it can end in 3 weeks. Having a couple of weeks where people still went to bars and ordered takeout was not a lockdown. At least not in the sense that a virus would care about. Plenty of countries did a hard lockdown and enjoyed normal activities afterwards but no, because the "land of the free" can't do a public health (or allow poor people in other countries to get vaccines) we globally got to have multiple waves. You're saying it's not about compliance, but in the countries where people complied they are enjoying a freedom we still are not.

It's better in science to have a false positive than a false negative. Had we not even done that half-assed few months of quasi-confinement (no indoor dining, curbside pickup, no movies, work remotely, otherwise go wild!) the deaths would have been much higher. Remember, we only went into that soft lockdown once cases had started to spike. The federal government knew about it earlier. You don't have to know jack shit about a virus to know that it's probably a good idea to minimize person-person contact until you know jack shit about it? I don't know, I guess that's "radical" in the US, the idea that you might have to make some sacrifices for your neighbors or community or city or state or country.