Lockdowns ineffective according to WHO

A WHO report says lockdowns should not be in our arsenal of policy responses because they have significant downsides and no proven effectiveness.

I've been told that the historical evidence unequivocally proves the effectiveness of lockdowns, which is false, and that it's "obvious" that they work, for which evidence is shaky (even a post lockdown decline in infections is not definitive, unless you want to argue that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy).

None of that means this WHO report is correct and the answer. What it does mean is that those who have suggested there's no real debate about whether to lock down are dead wrong. There is a very real scientific debate about both their efficiency and their basic effectiveness.

So for all the people who've been suggesting that critics of lockdowns are ignorant fools, check your own ignorance, and maybe put a check on your sneering at those who are concerned we may be doing more harm than good.

To weigh the other side of a story, here is an article that points to lockdowns working. Note that it still depends on how we define our terms here, and how much overlap in meaning there is between the different terms for policy interventions.