Are lockdowns the right way to go?

Are lockdowns the right way to go?
Was enforcing the lockdowns the right decision? Was it worth to destroy livelihoods to protect lives? Or was it just overreaction?

As the coronavirus pandemic spread around the globe with a force of a tsunami, more than 100 countries adopted strict lockdown measures to slow down COVID-19 transmission.

Governments hit the pause button on social gatherings, schools, sports events, and religious services. Borders were closed, as a result, business activities declined and economies crippled.

But lockdown cannot last forever. After this unprecedented pause, we will hit play to get our lives back.

It leads to some questions: Was enforcing the lockdowns the right decision? Was it worth destroying livelihoods to protect lives? Or was it just overreaction?

There is a fierce debate between those who strongly criticize the idea of lockdown and those who believe that it would be inhumane not to try to avoid as many coronavirus cases as possible. I’m not a fan of President Trump, but he had a point saying “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. You’re going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession. You’re going to have suicides by the thousands.”

Unlike many other countries, Sweden didn’t impose a lockdown on its citizens. They decided to adopt a more sustainable approach of relying on its people to take responsibility and follow government guidelines.

As per the Swedish Public Health Agency, the main idea was to introduce less severe social distancing measures that could be maintained over a long period of time.

The Swedish model is based on two pillars- One of them is to only use measures that are evidence-based, such as washing hands- known for over 150 years, and social distancing. The other is to protect the old and the frail only.

Perhaps, dry logic and down- to -earth demeanor of this approach is the way to go?

According to the most recent reports, in Stockholm- the epicenter of the virus, cases have stopped increasing and Swedish State epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell argues that their coronavirus strategy works. The healthcare system keeps on working and there are still spaces in intensive care units.

In practice, the Swedish model of maintaining an open society makes sense because the people have been cooperating and obeying the guidelines. As per business insider: “Sweden said it didn’t need a lockdown because people could be trusted to socially distance themselves”.

I have recently watched the conversation with the world’s most senior epidemiologist Johan Giesecke. He claims that the idea of the lockdown might not be wrong, but governments that imposed lockdown didn’t even consider how they will take their countries out of lockdowns they installed.

School closures could be an example- he claims that governments had no criteria of when they will reopen schools when the closure was decided on.

Moreover, he compares COVID-19 to the tsunami of a rather milder infection spreading around the globe with most people becoming infected without even noticing it. He argues that there is very little chance to stop it, in particular by such measures as lockdowns. Giesecke, explains that countries that imposed lockdowns and now pride themselves in having few deaths will get these deaths when they start lifting these lockdowns.

It was Prof. Giesecke’s parting comments on hard lockdown policies that really struck me:

“Governments should trust people, people are not stupid if you tell them what’s good for they will do what you say, you don’t need the soldiers in the street and the policies, it’s unnecessary”.

It’s a universal truth that we all fear for our lives, a psychology of human behavior implies that fear is one of the central emotional response to the pandemic. But we also strive to live in the free society and we want to be able to have the right to participate in the political decisions that are fundamental to any well- being.

I come from the country where once upon a time people gladly gave their lives for freedom, independence, and the right of fair treatment.

So how come we need an epidemiologist to remind us of living free?