Over in the UK, the Spectator just made note of a report coming out of Norway that will surprise folks who haven't been following the lockdowns and the course of the virus closely.
The rest of us are just happy someone is admitting it.
What are they admitting?
That the lockdowns were unnecessary.
It turns out that the virus was already on the decline when the lockdowns were ordered, and it was not spreading nearly as fast as the most extreme numbers -- on the basis of which the lockdowns were implemented -- suggested it was:
"It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 [and not 2 or 3, as a frightened public was being told] when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1…. We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down."
And according to the director of Norway’s public health agency, "Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect -- and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions -- by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread."
She added that "the academic foundation was not good enough" to justify lockdown.
Now, I wonder:
Will the people who touted Norway as an example of a country that locked down early continue to promote that country as an example, now that its officials are admitting they made a mistake?
Or were we supposed to respect Norway only when it lived up to our preconceived ideas?
It's exhausting trying to keep up with what we're supposed to believe from one day to the next.