I have seen the headlines, but are they true?
There's an increasing birth rates in other countries - like Germany;
https://www.dw.com/en/baby-boom-or-b...tes/a-58028699
And in the US there are indications it was a decline followed by an increase -
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2780572
And then there's a separate issue whether declining fertility rates are actually good or bad.
That study was from June
2020; and stated that Europe could have policies driving R below 1.
In hindsight that was at best an optimistic estimate - but in reality
it is just debunked bad science;
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3025-y
Science-speak for: we don't know what works and you mangled your data too hard.
(due to the pooling-part of the model) Science-speak for: your analysis stinks.
They more importantly state that you don't have to have lockdowns (unless you think it sounds cool) but targeted interventions.
Limiting restaurants to outdoor seating (or seating capacity) doesn't sound like "lockdown"; neither is avoiding full arenas at football games.
Does it still have some economic impact? Yes.
Does it limit the spread of the disease to some extent? Yes, likely.
With higher vaccination rates (primarily in parts of the developed world - I still don't know what will happen in Japan and Australia) it seems even more unrealistic to go back to discussing full lockdowns.
- - - Updated - - -
Spoiler, the 11th country (noted above) that didn't fit into the flawed model from Imperial College without some seriously bad handling was: Sweden.