Re: Stick to the tech, please
>You understand don't you
In the wider sense of virology, probably not, it's not my area of expertise.
But no nation has a full lock-down: there are still medics at work, police on the streets, food being delivered, shops open. Meaning that there is still the route for the virus to circulate.
If every nation on the planet can bear the pain long enough, the virus will die out (except it probably jumped species into Humans, meaning there may always be a reservoir of virus in the species of origin) or we'll get a vaccine / cure.
But right now, most of the nations in Europe seem to be loosening their lock-downs, with the sensible concern that they will see a rise in the number of cases as a result.
If lock-down is effective in supressing transmission (as it appears to be) then it would seem highly likely that there will be an increase in cases as the suppression measures are reduced. (If there isn't, it implies that the suppression measures were not actually suppressing anything).
This is, I believe, part of the argument that guided the Swedes to adopt their approach - a less stringent lock-down results in less risk of a peak when you release the lockdown (since there is less to release).
>not intentionally infecting people with a deadly virus you don't fully understand
No one has been intentionally infected.
And infecting someone with a deadly virus isn't particularly sensible however well you understand the virus.
>the winner is lockdown. Fewer deaths, virus over quicker.
Fewer deaths: well, possibly; fewer deaths at the mid-point (if that is where we are now), not yet clear at the end, But possible.
Virus over quicker: Probably not.
You appear to have forgotten what Everyone competent was saying back in February and March - it's all about flattening the curve.
Do nothing, cases exceed the capacity of your health care system, some people die because they were going to die if they got the virus, lots of people die that could be saved.
Flatten the curve. cases are within capacity of your health service, some people die because they were going to die if they got the virus, everyone that could be saved is saved.
But the area under the curve is unchanged: the number of people that get the virus is unchanged, but the duration of the outbreak is longer, and that saves lives.
So virus not over quicker.
Now I don't know if that's correct (not my area of expertise), and perhaps Everyone competent has since changed their opinion, and flattening the curve is no longer the solution.
Meanwhile, lots of people that aren't experts in virology, but are experts in other things (like cancer care) are expressing concern about the impact of the lockdown.
And because I am not a specialist in those areas either, I wouldn't suggest that they are completely wrong.