Revisiting the Lockdown Sagas?

It's now almost three years since the UK's first Covid19 lockdown. Arguments about the effectiveness of this (and other) attempts to limit the spread of this virus continue to swirl. Devi Sridhar (University of Edinburgh) maintains that, although many people would like to forget the trauma, we have to learn from the experience, if we are to do better next time (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/covid-britain-locked-down-three-years-trauma). Sridhar notes that no country/state did nothing. She suggests we can learn, from what worked and what didn't work. Sridhar thinks Japan provided evidence, that face masks limited viral spread, especially on public transport. South Korea proved that, testing and tracing, combined with supported isolation, limited Covid19 deaths. Denmark established that, using large, well-ventilated spaces (like arenas), facilitated an early return to school/university teaching. New Zealand, benefiting from its relative isolation, employed clear and effective messaging for its public. Norway proved that moving, early to prepare and contain outbreaks, reduced the later need for harsher lockdowns. The UK's quick roll out of vaccines and prioritising of vulnerable groups, was also a success story. Sridhar maintains that, pitting the needs of the young against those of the old, was always deeply unhelpful. There's actually no way of consigning these two cohorts, to different worlds. She also thinks attempts, by some folk, to downplay the severity of Covid19 was/is profoundly wrong. Covid19 is neither like a bad cold nor is it a hoax. Implying that people/children, with underlaying health conditions, have lives that matter less than those of the rest of 'society' is also wholly inappropriate. Richard Seymour agrees that the costs of lockdown were severe. He notes, however, that most people thought suspending capitalism for a while, even at some cost to income, social lives and mental health, was appropriate and necessary (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/lockdown-sceptics-history-academics-left-covid ). The lockdown story is now, however, being rewritten by sceptics. Seymour thinks this is a wholly predictable response from the political right. What he finds weird, however, is that some folk ostensibly on the political left, are also using what he calls gross hyperbole and fact distortion, to attack the very concept of lockdowns. Attacking lockdowns seems to attract publicity. Perhaps it sells books?