tjh290633 wrote:As I understand it, the rate of infection had already peaked when the first lockdown was introduced.
Cases per day on March 23th, when first lockdown was announced, were 2323.
Cases per day hit 4000 on March 30th, and did not drop back to below 3000 per day until 3rd May.
So, no.
In the second wave the rate of infection again peaked in the initially affected areas before we were all put into full lockdown on Boxing Day.
Cases per day on 26th December were 40371.
For the next 19 days, cases were above that number 16 times, and below it 3 times (which includes New Years Day, which was almost certainly underreported), and above 50000 10 times.
So, for the country as a whole, no.
Other than possibly Brazil, there is no Control experiment to establish the value or otherwise and whether of any of the measures, like social distancing, wearing masks, prohibition of singing in church, etc., had any effect. We do not know if the rate of infection would have gone higher or followed the trajectory it did, had those measures not been taken.
We do not know exactly what impact the measures had.
I don not understand how anyone could look at the numbers and believe that they had no impact at all.
Cases go up.
Restrictions are imposed, cases go down.
Restrictions are loosened, cases go up.
Restrictions are reimposed, cases go down.
Restrictions are loosened, cases go up.
However the "Something must be done" approach is not necessarily the correct one. I have been there in industry where the cry from management was that, when leaving things alone was the correct response. The furnace corrected itself without intervention, whereas changing something would have made matters worse.
Do you think that was the case here?