zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
This is a really biased article pushing a particular viewpoint. If it wasn't, you would also include the studies the demonstrate the number of lives saved by lockdowns that happened, the impact of different levels and types of lockdowns etc.

A good summary with links is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/counting-the-lives-sa...

>>aplumm+DS
Some of those studies strike me as wildly off base. E.g.

> On a more positive note, Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College London published a model in Nature around the same time estimating that more than 3 million deaths had been avoided in the UK as a result of the policies that were put in place.

3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.

Also:

> The most effective measure, they found, was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect.

That article appears to agree with this one.

>>everfo+O01
I can't vouch for the specific number but the IFR with good treatment is very different from the number you get if healthcare is overwhelmed. There's a tipping point where a lot of people that normally would "just" be hospitalized won't make it, and the scary part is that it also affects the 45-60 years old.

You would also have to consider people who cannot be treated for other diseases (e.g. appendicitis), compound effects on the number of available beds due to doctors and nurses being sick, etc.