Except there's little empirical evidence that the lockdowns were effective. Hence they were not bases on science.
I can't agree with this. First, the lockdowns were based on science -- though admittedly (even by those doctors making the decisions) there was a lot they didn't know. A lot was based on the idea that it had spread factor of 2 (that each infected person was likely to infect 2 others) and the ability of the virus to overwhelm healthcare services, as it had in China and Italy. Further, the lockdowns weren't to completely stop the spread, they were supposed to be meant to keep the spread slow enough that doctors could manage those that ended up with bad cases.
As for "effectiveness," there is little question that the lockdown slowed the disease. The lockdown was further considered effective because of the lack of ability we had to protect our healthcare workers -- we did not have enough protective equipment such as masks, face guards; not to mention things like ventilators for patients (even if it now appears ventilators should not have been used in many cases).
Worse, we still have some of the same questions -- we still don't really understand how the disease spreads; though it does appear we are getting closer. We still don't have a "treatment protocol" perfected for those that are infected by the virus.
I would disagree that there is little evidence the lockdown was effective, I think the issue is -- knowing what we know now -- is was the lockdown overkill? For example, in hindsight, I think in most areas there was little reason to completely stop all non-emergency hospital treatments. Instead, it seems like some that might be more time consuming (in terms of time in the hospital) should have been stopped, many same day and even two or three days (total in hospital) procedures should have been allowed -- with the idea that, should events warrant, those could be cancelled with almost no notice. But, again, the idea is we were trying to prevent "Italy" -- or even a situation like New York. Then again, I'm not an expert and won't claim to know all of what went into their decisions.
The fact that their proponents tried to shame anti-lockdown protestors and even people who simply showed up to church, yet had no criticism about violations of social distancing for protests in the aftermath of George Floyd's death is proof enough of that.
And I think that would be something to bring up with the vocal minority who did those types of things. At the same time, I think the anti-lockdown protesters numbed us to the point that we didn't care when other protesters weren't properly social distancing.
They lockdowns were never anything but purely political, which also explains the arbitrary manner in which they were implemented.
The odd thing is, this only seems to be true in the US. In most of the rest of the world, lockdowns weren't political -- they recognized it as the best way to stop out of control spread of the virus, to keep it from overwhelming their medical facilities and personnel. It is even odder that even the most red states ordered lockdowns -- in fact, the "severity" of the lockdowns seem at least as related to the severity of the virus in those states (NY, Michigan, Washington all had serious outbreaks; the states where Trump and Republicans had issues with the lockdowns), as it does to the political party of the governor.
If you want to argue that not all states needed to shut down, then you should likely point to the Republican states of Oklahoma, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, etc.
Yes, you can point to Sweden; but again, they felt -- based on the unique things about their country, such as their medical capacity -- that strong social distancing measures would be enough (and would be followed well enough to their citizens) that they could just "outlaw" groups and require distancing and masks. If nothing else, I think the "political" aspect of the virus in this country -- particularly with some of the things that have occurred (such as various "lockdown parties") -- that people would not have followed social distancing rules and limits on groups without the lockdown.
Despite the spin, the lockdowns have been bipartisan. Again, hindsight may show a better picture about what we should have done but we know much more than we did three months ago.
