Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 15 2021 05:26pm)
Study focuses on "early pandemic", i.e. spring and summer when the virus is not as transmissible. It is expected that lesser restrictions will achieve better effects in those circumstances.... however once you read further you find the comparison is not apples to apples. South Korea instituted major testing that vastly outpaced all of the other countries, and Sweden voluntarily locked down. They shut down concerts, sporting events, and businesses without a government forcing them in a way that the other compared countries wouldn't have and didn't. So we should be wary of drawing any conclusions from those comparisons.
This is also in the article
"A second study published alongside that report in Nature, and led by scientists in the United States, found that 530 million coronavirus infections had been avoided due to early lockdowns in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France and the United States, according to the news outlet."
which contradicts what I already know right wingers will take from this article.
When I say "lesser restrictions will achieve better effects" I mean that lesser restrictions in spring will achieve a better result than lesser restrictions in summer, since the wild spread rate in spring is less than it is in winter. A lockdown will always have at least the same effect as just social distance and whatnot.