You can’t say a plan ”failed“ that most of the country did not even approach reasonable implementation of it. And considering it “medically derived” when a good portion of our leadership either downplayed it or considered it a hoax is stretching things a bit.I stand by "when".
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
And if what we implemented was a medically-derived plan, it suffered gaping flaws that non-experts saw early on (pat self on back):
Little effort to contact trace unless the patient became Intensive Care serious.
Did not distinguish between sick and healthy.
Did not separate the sick from the healthy, nor put containment lines around areas known to be affected to prevent carriers from spreading it more widely.
No research (or findings ignored) into immunobooster activities that would help civilians fend off exposure.
Lockdowns had not been used against any other epidemic for a century; why was this the proper strategy and not another?
The potential economic and psychological side-effects of universal lockdowns not taken seriously - and led straight to a violation of Hippocrates' maxim "First, do no harm" when they became actual effects.
Hmph, I'm bleeding over from the plan to stubbornly refusing to adapt it as circumstances dictated, I'll stop now.
The actual instructions from healthcare pros DID distinguish between the healthy and the sick, hence things like contact tracing.
Putting aside the time it took to devise tests to diagnose C19 in the first place, separating the sick from the healthy is problematic when @30% of the afflicted are asymptomatic for the bulk or entirety of their infectious period. By the time we could ID the infected with any accuracy, C19 was pretty much endemic. Simply putting up containment lines of barricades and road blocks would have been futile.
Similarly futile would be advocating immune boosting practices beyond what MDs typically advise of their patients. This was a novel pathogen. Even perfectly healthy people‘s immune systems could be overwhelmed because virtually nobody’s immune system had prior exposure to It.*
Lockdowns were used for this pandemic because we had no vaccines or viable treatments for C19 AND no way to diagnose those with C19 until they had been infectious for some time. Also, if you look at the past 100 years of global responses to epidemics, you WILL see the use of lockdowns and mass quarantines for diseases like Ebola.
Epidemiologists DID acknowledge and openly discuss the economic and mental health care aspects of the lockdowns. Some of the more...colorful commentators noted you can’t have a functioning economy if too many people are dead & dying. (C19’s mortality rate hadn’t yet been calculated as a global average.) And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen reminder PSAs to check on friends and family to see how they handling things.
And if you think the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition about doing no harm is all encompassing and absolute, you must have SERIOUS problems with modern medical practice and pharmacology in general.
* Researchers have found that a small percentage of people exposed to some of the cold-causing coronaviruses had a slightly better immune response than those who hadn’t.