Hypotheses are there to be argued against, right? There is something to be said about this one.
The explanation behind the hypothesis can be found in this article The graph below makes the idea clear: The virus waits until there is a lockdown to rear its head.
My verdict: not correct
- For example, I can't think of how the lockdowns have filled the ICUs with respiratory patients everywhere in a week.
- All governments have been waiting for an exponential increase in reports and hospitalizations. It was only at the last moment that the heavy instrument of the lockdown was deployed. So the mortality figures were already in the making. The infections were already too far in the exponential growth curve to be able to cancel out the peak. Also because of the insufficient testing capacity, no action was taken until the foot of the inevitable peak. In retrospect, maybe it's a good thing.
- The curves are flattening steeply everywhere to low levels. How much further they would have risen and that they would level off more slowly can be deduced somewhat from Sweden, which has allowed a more natural course (but also: a different population density etc.)
- In Sweden, the disease also peaked and there was no lockdown, only 'social distancing' according to the graph. That actually falsifies the hypothesis.
This does not alter the fact that the measures were rattling
In my opinion, the collateral damage of the lockdowns does not outweigh their realized effect. And there is also collateral damage in people's lives, also for the near future. However, it goes too far for me to suggest that the lockdowns caused the spike. So the hypothesis is nice but found too light for me.
A word about Sweden
The Swedish peak has clearly 'extinguished' more slowly, which indicates a higher R0 value than with us. This has meant relatively more mortality. Sweden is now in a better economic position at the expense of a higher death toll for the time being. We'll see if we can catch up with Sweden after the summer. I don't think so myself, given what we now know about ventilation and treatments. But we are faced with unprecedented damage to society, the healthcare system, public health and not to mention a huge breach of trust with government and RIVM who have guided us into this national nightmare.
The real culprit is the deliberate downplaying of the aerogenic spread of viruses for decades.
Measles was very bad => research => aerogenic
SARS was very bad => research => aerogenic
MERS was very much => research => aerogenic
etc.
Influenza -> fact of life => No research, not that serious (not even with 6500 deaths per year!?), difficult to prove...
So the (un)scientific starting point is: "not aerogenic because not proven". Just like with SARS-Cov2 (Covid-19). An unimaginable fallacy against logic.
I nominate the corona crisis 2020 as the first candidate for the biggest virological-epidemiological blunder of the coming century – perhaps the biggest medical blunder – perhaps the biggest scientific blunder of the century. At least if we call the RIVM/OMT members scientists.
