JD asserts that I've made a series of "assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions." And then proceeds to make a series of assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions.

"It's easy, several years later, to declare everything a "monumental error"."

Yes it would be. Except I was making these points on these pages (and elsewhere) within two months of the outbreak of the WuFlu hysteria when the lockdown mania was first kicking off.

mhaze,

Pointing out that you expressed similar views early in the pandemic doesn't address the substance of the discussion.

The issue I raised wasn't when you first said these things. It was the basis for the conclusions you're drawing now.

For example, you described income support programs as "catastrophic". But you haven't shown that allowing businesses to collapse and unemployment to spike sharply in early 2020 would have produced a better economic outcome.

Likewise on vaccines, you said we may never know how many people were killed by them. That’s a pretty serious claim, but at the moment it’s just speculation unless there’s evidence to back it up.

Which brings me back to the same question I asked earlier.

If the COVID response was really a “monumental error”, what should governments actually have done instead in early 2020, given what was known at the time?

Saying you opposed lockdowns early on doesn’t answer that.

JD says "It's easy, several years later, to declare everything a "monumental error"."

I point out that I wasn't saying it several years later but was actually saying at the time. JD retreats with alacrity but little finesse.

"Saying you opposed lockdowns early on doesn’t answer that." So now that I've pointed out that I was an early opponent of lockdowns he tells me that doesn't matter (although it seemed to matter a day ago!!) but what really matters is if those opposed to the lockdowns offered alternatives. Well they and I did offer alternatives from early on so we'll probably find out from JD that what was important today isn't important tomorrow.

"But you haven't shown that allowing businesses to collapse and unemployment to spike sharply in early 2020 would have produced a better economic outcome."

What makes you think that not locking down would have caused business collapse or unemployment? Now you're just making it up as you go.
And you haven't shown that spending billions so that people could cease being productive was good economic sense. Just saying that you believe whatever the government tells you isn't really convincing.

The nation has massive debt issues which is a total reversal of the nett government credit position bequeathed by Howard/Costello. Much of that is due to the monumental sums thrown at lockdown mania. That massive debt seriously restricts the policy option available today and will be paid for for decades hereafter.

But the pro-lockdown crowd will pretend not to notice

You're reading a retreat where there isn't one, mhaze.

Pointing out that you opposed lockdowns early doesn't establish that the policy response was wrong. Lots of people had strong views in early 2020. The question is whether those views were supported by evidence and whether the alternative would have produced a better outcome.

That's the point I raised before and it's still the one you haven't addressed.

You asked why I think the economy would have taken a hit without intervention. By early 2020 the damage was already happening. Travel had collapsed, businesses were closing their doors and people were staying home. The pandemic itself was driving the shock, not just government policy.

Income support programs were introduced to stop that shock turning into a wave of bankruptcies and mass unemployment. You can argue those programs were poorly designed or too generous in places, but simply calling them "catastrophic" doesn't demonstrate that doing nothing would have been better.

The same applies to your vaccine claim. Saying we may never know how many people were killed by vaccines isn't evidence of anything. It's speculation.

You've also shifted the discussion to government debt, which is a separate issue.

So the question remains the same one I asked earlier.

If the COVID response was a "monumental error", what specific alternative strategy should governments have pursued in early 2020, given the information available at the time?