where it feels like again you are debating the efficacy of trying to fight the virus at all. Like we will see in the future if we should have just let people die.
Just to address this point actually: First of all, I actually resigned to the idea that lockdown was probably the right decision at the time, and actually said as much. One of the examples I gave for why it was, was that we simply didn't have enough knowledge about what we were facing. It seemed like the safe strategy until we have a better understanding of the virus.
However, in terms of whether lockdown was the best strategy in the long-run, I never really made the case for not fighting the virus at all, that would be stupid. You don't want the virus to just ravage through society. My argument was actually about complete lockdown. It is more a question of what is viable and at what time. And I thought it was worth exploring that.
The experts have always, right from the beginning, believed that the virus wasn't going to go away until there is a vaccine. They feared that once the lockdown is lifted it will start to come back. We are now seeing evidence of this in places like Germany, and China, where areas of the country have gone back into lockdown. The question of herd immunity is a crucial one. There are two ways in which we can reach herd immunity: 60% to 70% of the country gets it, or we have a vaccine. Obviously a vaccine would be the most preferable solution. However, there is no guarantee we will have a working vaccine. It can take up to 10 years for there to be a working vaccine. Also there are potential problems if the virus mutates. Now, I'm sure most people understand that we can't keep going into lockdown for 10 years. It is not a viable solution.
And so the argument then is, what exactly is the most viable strategy in a world where there is no vaccine and the virus keeps coming back? What are the potential consequences of each strategy? Personally, I just don't see continually going in and out of lockdown for years as a viable strategy. In the short-term lockdown does seem attractive, but when I think of potentially years of it, it doesn't seem viable to me in the long-term. That doesn't mean do nothing. It just means no lockdown. In strange way, it is not even about what strategy has potentially saved the most lives. Or what country has been the most successful. It is a much longer term outlook. As I said, potentially over 10 years or indefinitely in the worst case scenario. When dealing with different timescales how we deal with it could be very different. It will be very different.
Without a vaccine I actually see this as simply inevitable. The Swedish model will possibly become the norm. I think we probably have until the end of the year, and at the latest perhaps to the spring of next year, to see where we are with a vaccine. If things aren't promising, I can see countries changing direction. I am certainly hearing this in the US right now.
