The more stringent restrictions, whether it be lockdown in England, the firebreak in Wales or the longer Circuit Breaker in Northern Ireland have all been similarly effective in bringing down both cases and admissions at a reasonably rapid rate. Prior to the national lockdown in England, it is clear that regional tier restrictions had varying degrees of effectiveness; Tier 1 failed to stem the growth, Tier 3 appeared to be effective at initiating a modest decline, and in the middle, Tier 2 was broadly neutral.

The tiers are not allocated at random, so I'm not sure how you would show that the causation isn't the other way round. If nothing much seems to be happening (from which point the rate of increase has the greatest scope for change) then the politicians will put them in tier 1. If things are really bad (so, the rate of increase is high and poised to decrease of its own accord) they will be put in tier 4. Hence, tier 4 appears more effective than tier 1. We've seen analysis of mask-wearing that did much the same thing, comparing the rate of change of new infections in areas with no mask mandate (precisely because they were early in the curve) with the rate of change in areas with a mask mandate (because the infection rate was already very high).

I think I asked this a while back and never got an answer.
Can you tell me the benefits of lockdowns vs the economic and human cost. I see it as the cure being far more damaging than disease. How do you see it. Ultimately do you see lockdowns have been a success and has the cost been worth it?

I think the overall cost of the repeated lockdown policy will be huge Mia.
The direct loss of life attributable as a consequence will far out weight the loss of life to Covid. There is also to be factored in the immense damage to very fabric of society and humanity, l think this (experiment) will be looked back at in a few decades time with absolute disbelief and horror, that such measures were even contemplated let alone instigated.

There are no net benefits from lockdown, in any sense.

There will be no net reduction in fatalities.

There will be no net reduction in infections.

All lockdowns do, is delay the inevitable.

In return for that, there is the price of lockdown in all the extra deaths from neglected treatment of other conditions, plus the conditions caused by lockdown itself: psychological damage and suicides, reduced health due to lack of mobility and circulation etc.

The overwhelming logic of all this is so blindingly obvious, I simply find it astounding there is even an ongoing argument.

And this is by the admission of the lockdown promoters: "flatten the curve" etc. It is a simple mathematical concept to anyone with a scientific training: the "area under the curve" being the number of infections/fatalities, then "flattening" the curve does not change this - it just spreads it out over a longer period of time.

Lockdown is beyond stupid. It is even beyond "wrong". It is almost a fraud. It is like telling someone who has chronic toothache that not eating or drinking will "cure" the condition.

Exactly speedstick.a kindred spirit indeed. I notice the narrative today from doris is " data that's coming in now suggests lockdowns seemed to have worked". Well we knew the narrative would start changing to that as they have to try and turn the narrative to..well despite the horror we have inflicted on you all guess what speech so the sheep can all cry hail boris what a hero blah blah..interesting but not surprising its followed by we made still need stricter restrictions ( what's left) by jolly reporting that you can now get the vaccine 24/7 as lots of places ( including asda ) will be open at night to jab you..in other words we can pretend lockdowns are wonderful but we have to get you all jabbed first before we look at some loosening of the rules but masks pubs shut ( wont be any) social distancing all your freedoms basically will stay removed ( we loved the power and the compliance) as you will need your 2nd jab then lockdowns again next year then jabbing forever..
😀