On the one hand there is reason to doubt the efficacy of lockdown procedures in permanently reducing infections and deaths - witness the case of California, where lockdown provisions were stringent and the bluebloods likely follow precautions diligently, yet now is experiencing spiking cases and deaths.
On the other hand places in Southeast Asia, like Vietnam and Taiwan, and also Australia and New Zealand (who are locked off from travelers from the rest of the world), the incidence is extraordinarily low - and even now apparently in China.
Could it be a geographical phenomenon - it is certainly not ethnic, and therefore not genetic, since all elements or our population are similarly affected? Could it be that the populations of those geographical areas have a naturally higher level of immunity owing to their previous exposures over a long time to covid viruses?
Take the claim that lockdowns help to bring the virus back under control. Supporters point to Wuhan (which is not exactly inspiring) as proof of their efficacy. Yet in Spain, France and Britain, which all imposed harsh lockdowns, and even Germany itself (which has been in semi-lockdown for most of this year), there is no such proof that lockdowns work, with infection and death rates rising in all. Indeed, studies have found that there is no correlation between the stringency of lockdowns and Covid death rates.
But alternative approaches just do not seem to get a look in. Take the proposal to shield care homes. Merkel simply rejected this idea out of hand. And politicians and journalists just went along with her. But given two thirds of Germany’s Covid-related deaths occured in the care-home sector, surely we should at least be thinking about a targeted shielding approach rather than dismissing it out of hand?