Armchair Epidemiologists, Eh?

But then

Professor Michael Levitt, who teaches structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, won the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for "the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems."

And according to Levitt, coronavirus data show that sweeping lockdown measures were an overreaction that may actually backfire. 

Levitt has been analysing the COVID-19 outbreak from a statistical perspective since January and has been remarkably accurate in his predications. The data show that the outbreak never actually grew exponentially, suggesting harsh lockdown measures, which have drastically impacted the world economy, were probably unnecessary.

His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes "sub-exponential".
This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The 'unmitigated' scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt's point is that that hasn't actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.

[...]"I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn't practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity,"

Linkeroney: tip'o'th'tiplo hat to Blaze for this one, emphases mine own.
he's only a "structural biologist", that hasn't got any epibolo edipomel epidobro whatchamabob in it anywhere so what would he know?

And but then, fisticuffs over whether there ever was any evidence suggesting that "continued exponential growth" might be on the cards at all, are unlikely to break out any time soon, simply too abstruse for a good punch-up.

And but then again at the time nobody kneeeewwww... and when you don't know the scale of a risk you might be facing, blind panic is the only rational course. By the time you've got the O's of the OODA loop under way, th'Covids will already be taking all the jobs, opening corner shops, marrying your daughter etc.