To be honest mate I'm guessing that with the benefit of hindsight the lockdown will be viewed as largely unnecessary. I'm hopeful it will be anyway. What I mean by that is that our "curves" will be largely the same and the asymptomatic infection rate has been grossly underestimated simply due to community testing limitations (I actually believe this virus has been in the UK since November/December - here's an interesting article for you that highlights the flu was hospitalising eight times as many people this year; I think there's a massive chance a lot of those where COVID-19 before we were testing for it -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7810129/Flu-cases-EIGHT-TIMES-higher-point-UK-winter.html)
But there's no doubt in my mind that it was the
correct decision to enforce it. Sweden might have got this right but it's a ridiculous gamble that they shouldn't have played with their own populace IMO.
Agree with that and definitely the bit in bold - I don't think the UK had a choice, though maybe they would have been to be able to go into a reduced lockdown - i.e. a set 3-4 week period rather than indefinite. Maybe Sweden should have done too - as you say it's a big gamble, but I just meant to respond to the point that they're willing to sacrifice people to do it.
I think their plan is/was very much to use their state-of-the-art healthcare system to ensure as few deaths as possible. But it seems they have underestimated the spread of this virus.
On your first point about it being around for months, I'm with you there too, and your point about the asymptomatic infection rate. I'm sure some latest estimates are saying 80% will show no symptoms. Isn't to say we shouldn't be locking down or what not or taking these measures, just proves how difficult a situation it is.
