mhaze,

How many times do I have to show you that I’m not making anything up before you'll be too embarrassed to keep making the claims?

You’re not quick to learn.

1. Even if you were only talking about Australia, the comparison still doesn’t hold up. Australia’s low death toll compared to other nations is a result of strict lockdowns and interventions. The virus itself wasn’t "like the flu" - it was Australia’s early actions that kept it from becoming worse.

2. Even at less than 1%, covid’s fatality rate was still much higher than seasonal flu, especially before vaccines. Mentioning 0.01%, even if it was "touted," is misleading because it downplays the actual risks at that time.

3. Narrowing the argument to Australia doesn't change the fact that globally, covid was far deadlier than expected. Citing only Australia to claim you were right ignores the broader context where predictions of high death tolls turned out to be accurate.

4. Asymptomatic transmission made this strategy unworkable. Covid spread even among those without symptoms, making it impossible to shield the vulnerable effectively without broader measures like lockdowns.

5. Countries that acted quickly with lockdowns actually recovered faster both in health and economic terms. The idea that lockdowns caused the economic problems oversimplifies the issue. The global economic fallout was due to the pandemic itself, not just the measures to control it.

So, your arguments either ignore the broader context or rely on selective data. Australia’s success came from the policies you criticise.

Well mhaze, I'd give up the "I said/ you said" debate with the undebatable -don't be sidetracked by claims that what you have said recently or in the past wasn't true when it's borne out by actual events.
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) a wise old journo and great raconteur/ author:
"It ain't what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so".
I think that is obviously on display here, and not by you.

The safest place to be during the pandemic hysteria was outdoors.
mhaze,
That goes without saying but that's not what you're arguing. You're saying none of the precautions taken have proven to be useless. First of all, this is just way too broad & general a statement.
We're not talking about the clean outdoors, we're talking about rabbit warren-like city environments for which I'm certain the precautions worked !
We only got Covid when it was brought in by Southerners escaping the rabbit warrens.

Mikko2,

Yep, the information that has come out over the past two years really does verify and vindicate all those who opposed the lockdowns and mandates policies. Yet we still have people like JD and indyvidual who cling to the belief in what the government and health authorities told them to believe. That people still think masking was anything other than a waste of effort (at best) and positively dangerous (at worst) or that social distancing did anything useful, does show how entrenched people's desire to bend to authority is.

There is little doubt that the whole lockdown regime was a mess and that governments will avoid that path in the future, especially when more and more people come to realise how wrong it was.

Likewise, it is now clear that growing numbers have come to realise that the vaccine regime of never-ending boosters is ineffective and have stopped getting boosted.

Nonetheless, the lockdown era was one that will be studied. The ease with which government was able to terrify the population into ceding their liberties was shocking to me. Victorian police actually shot people protesting their loss of democratic liberties and a majority applauded. Those with an authoritarian bent will take note.

OTOH, this was an era where the rise of non-traditional media came to the fore. The data that people like you and I have been able to elicit to understand how the people were being conned was only available due to the WWW and places like Twitter. In the past, establishment media would have been able to control the flow of (mis)information, but, for the moment, that has been defeated. Which is why governments are so anxious to introduce censorship laws.

New and better data will continue to be released over the next few years and the case against lockdowns will grow. Once all those with a vested interest in hiding the truth have moved on, things like a royal commission might be possible. I'd expect by 2035 you'd struggle to find anyone who would admit to being pro-lockdown.

mhaze,
The World would be quite different if Pasteur had the same views as you !

mhaze,

No, I don’t just blindly follow the government line. I go by what the science available at the time says. We’re just lucky most governments did, too.

Drawing this conclusion about Indyvidual and myself is as absurd as one of us claiming that you just blindly follow what the government says because you wear a seatbelt. You don’t wear a seatbelt because the government says you should - you wear it because the data shows that doing so is the safest course of action. It just so happens that most governments around the world agree.

As for the rest of your reply to Mikko2, you’re just doubling-down there.

Your argument that lockdowns were ineffective is not backed by solid evidence. Early interventions saved lives and prevented the collapse of healthcare systems, even though there were economic costs. Masking and social distancing were also effective, especially before vaccines were available, as multiple peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated.

As for vaccine boosters, people may stop getting them for various reasons, but it isn’t because of inefficacy - boosters have continued to reduce severe illness and death. The idea that public health measures were about controlling people ignores their real intent: to protect lives during an unprecedented crisis.

While alternative media provided access to some information, it also became a platform for spreading misinformation. Governments didn’t seek to censor free speech; they sought to prevent dangerous misinformation from leading to more harm. Speculating that people will be ashamed to support lockdowns by 2035 is just that - speculation - and is likely to be as accurate as your claim in 2013 that the science behind anthropogenic climate change was in its "death throes."

Your framing of the issue ignores the larger body of evidence supporting these public health measures and leans heavily on selective interpretation and conspiracy-based thinking.