If you're going to make an argument that lockdowns shouldn't have happened based on herd immunity, arguing that herd immunity measures are nonsensical doesn't really help your case...
Yes, we are considerably closer to immunity from death from disease now that vaccinations are in place. That also doesn't make your argument we needed more people to catch the disease when it was relatively deadly any stronger.
It's not "rocket science" or any kind of science when you insist that your stats work except when they don't, and that lockdown timings both didn't let enough people get the disease and let too many people get the disease.
I'm not making a statement that the lockdowns should not all have happened.
That is what you're inferring from what I've said.
I'm just stating as to whether they had the intended effect or not. In both cases they did not have the exactly intended effect because people mis-handled the situation.
The first lockdown can be justified from numerous perspectives. Economically, Healthcare, Socially the first lockdown at least in the UK allowed for the government to get control back on a difficult situation which we ended up spending at least £1T and bringing in the army for so any reason why we failed to get control falls on deaf ears given how much clearly has/had to be spent on this.
The statement that more people needed to catch varient-OmegaEpsilon over variant-X to reach immunity is just daft and an argument for the sake of it.
I say rocket science because there are no higher-order derivations required to explain the behaviours in this case the modelling is much, much simpler and just requires understanding what's going on. (I've worked with both sets of simulation systems, the code for rocket science is often much better and more complex but viral modelling is typically done very, very, very badly still in 2021)
The big clue here is LOCKDOWN1 != LOCKDOWN2 there are different reasons why they may have happened, how successful they were or should/could have been and that they both failed in different ways.
Making a statement that LOCKDOWN1 == LOCKDOWN2 is making a statement that every day of the year is exactly like Chirstmas. If you're not following this then you've misunderstood what I'm saying and I would advise you re-read some epidemiological texts, some texts on numerical modelling and some texts on statistical analysis.
> I'm not making a statement that the lockdowns should not all have happened. That is what you're inferring from what I've said.
Feel free to insert the words when they did into my original statement. What I am actually inferring from your statements that you believe the first lockdown should not have happened [when it did] due to inability to build herd immunity is that you believe the first lockdown should not have happened when it did because it reduced the ability to build some theoretical degree of herd immunity. I simply noted it was extraordinary that having suggested building this herd immunity for the coming winter was sufficiently important to warrant allowing more days/weeks of exponential spread of a then poorly-understood virus, you followup by saying herd immunity isn't a very well defined concept anyway!
(use any definition of herd immunity you like: when we're we're recording more new infections than this time last year, this ain't it!)
> The statement that more people needed to catch varient-OmegaEpsilon over variant-X to reach immunity is just daft and an argument for the sake of it.
Luckily, I didn't make that statement. I'm not sure quite how you missed the link between vaccinations and COVID being less deadly now (especially having made it yourself in the comment I replied to!) but for the avoidance of doubt I am arguing that the disease is less dangerous now, because the majority of people are vaccinated. But it is also still spreading despite it being 18 months later, many people having had the disease in the intervening time, and nearly all adults having received a vaccination which ceteris paribus greatly reduces their likelihood of transmitting the disease to others [as well as the harm it can do]. Which suggests allowing it to spread earlier last year would have been pretty futile as far as limiting COVID's ability to continue spreading in future months, but would obviously have killed some of the people who are fine catching it now.
Ultimately the extraordinary claim that Lockdown 1 was too early because we did not allow enough people to catch the disease to build up immunity but Lockdown 2 was too late (even though delaying it allowed more people to build up full immunity!) needs more justification than pointing out the lockdowns were not identical. Especially when you've already conceded the initially slower infection rate you observed in areas which had spikes earlier in the year doesn't persist as "other factors" come to dominate (i.e. there wasn't enough natural immunity on a population level to prevent mass infections). And probably still isn't, although the big advantage of being infected this winter rather than last winter or last summer is that you're a lot less likely to die.
Ultimately if you want to convince people your analysis vs the government's epidemiologists' is Galileo vs the geocentrics, you'll have to find a more persuasive evidence for your theory than telling people you've built models and they should read textbooks...
If you're going to make an argument that lockdowns shouldn't have happened based on herd immunity, arguing that herd immunity measures are nonsensical doesn't really help your case...
Yes, we are considerably closer to immunity from death from disease now that vaccinations are in place. That also doesn't make your argument we needed more people to catch the disease when it was relatively deadly any stronger.
It's not "rocket science" or any kind of science when you insist that your stats work except when they don't, and that lockdown timings both didn't let enough people get the disease and let too many people get the disease.