4 ms·

Your last line is the super important point, occurred to me today as well. If we beat this thing with social distancing, idiots will say "See! There was no re

Your last line is the super important point, occurred to me today as well. If we beat this thing with social distancing, idiots will say "See! There was no reason to panic!"

Tyrek 7y ago
and what if it died down due factors other than social distancing? You're positing an irrefutable claim which is sloppy logic.
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  The claim is not that if it dies down after social distancing, therefore social distancing was to blame, but that if it were to _really_ die down due to it, the measures would seem like an over-reaction to a certain segment of the populace. I think that, while a bit presumptuous, will hold true.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Given the different dates (and levels of aggressiveness) countries are enforcing social distancing, it should be quite refutable.
- orblivion 7y ago
  Whether it's social distancing or some other factor, the important point here I think is that it wouldn't have died down on its own. For you to look at the positive outcome alone and say "see, it wasn't a problem to begin with!" is just as irrefutable as to say it was the social distancing. So you have to use understanding of the disease, logic, data from other countries, etc, to come to your conclusion. (You ask an annoying, but fair and important question here. We shouldn't lose our skeptical mind.)
ihaveajob 7y ago
Indeed. Just 2 days ago I was talking to someone who was annoyed by people taking measures: "See, in China they're already seeing infections going down! No point in taking all these measures!" Without apparently realizing the reason why they're going down is extreme is precisely those extreme measures.
- irq11 7y ago
  There’s not much evidence that the extreme “lockdown” decisions made by China had a significant impact on the outcome either way. Social distancing, contact tracing and isolation of the sick work well, and that was almost certainly the critical portion of the response. For example, this paper makes a solid argument that the travel ban delayed the epidemic across china by only a few days: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/05/science.aba9757?fbclid=IwAR38_7HG3EXLTUxmXs7VGa_s-wW9Cj4OBElrQQ24oHx93mmA6XysDn-c7Yw https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/05/scie...
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    The big issue we have seen with contact tracing in this pandemic is that it doesn't catch everyone. Those contacts you didn't find start new chains that you need to find and disrupt, but doing that requires more tests than are available: People who haven't been traveling are simply denied tests. So you never find those chains, and you get out of control community spread.
  - ihaveajob 7y ago
    The problem with local, less aggressive measures is that people act in their self interest to bypass them for convenience or safety, and they make the problem worse. Recent examples: - Lockdown in northern Italy: People ran to the south taking the virus with them. - Schools closing, folks asked to work from home in Madrid: Families drive to the coast where bars and restaurants are full. I agree that in a place where compliance with social distance measures is high (I'm thinking South Korea, Japan), that would be enough. But that doesn't work everywhere.
enitihas 7y ago
I think it is fine to let the idiots win on this one and rub it in our face forever. I would be willing to boost the ego of anyone if we can contain this.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  How will they affect the next corona virus or other pandemic though? They'll be able to see "COVID-19 was a joke, this one will be too".
  - enitihas 7y ago
    I mean if we have arrived at a point where majority of the people can't be convinced of the existence of this, and the only way to make them understand is to do some damage, we have bigger problems as a society in front of us. You don't throw a kid under a bus if he doesn't understand you, you just keep trying with incentives and maybe minor punishments.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      It isn't about a popularity context. It only takes 1 harmful idiot (see the story behind Patient 31, linked elsewhere in this thread).
  - FriendlyNormie 7y ago
    You do understand that everything would have been fine if we simply pretended this virus didn’t exist, right? A few extremely old people would have died slightly sooner. That’s it.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      The disease is extremely contagious. Hospitals would've been even more overburdened as they currently are if we just "did nothing" because it would've spread much quicker. You might get to the point where you need to make a choice between who you're going to accept in the hospital (younger people then get the fast lane over the elder due to potential higher amount of life years being saved). I believe its like that in Italy at this point. If old people quarantine themselves the chances of them not getting this disease increase. I know a few elder (including loved ones) who I don't want to see passing away, so I have an interest in this. On a different note, I also find it selfish and distasteful to feel careless about big groups of other people based on discriminatory elements such as age.
Aeolun 7y ago
It’s like the IT dilemma all over again.
neuronic 7y ago
At my work people are ridiculing the serious response and extreme measure by countries. They boasted about buying now cheap tickets to fly on vacation instead of "suffering through" home office as ordered by our company. These are educated people. Doesn't seem to save them from ignorance though, as they are on the "just a flu" train.
- drummer 7y ago
  Smart people to be sure. The global hysteria for a simple flu is mind boggling.

Your last line is the super important point, occurred to me today as well. If we beat this thing with social distancing, idiots will say "See! There was no reason to panic!"

Tyrek 7y ago

and what if it died down due factors other than social distancing? You're positing an irrefutable claim which is sloppy logic.

RealityVoid 7y ago
The claim is not that if it dies down after social distancing, therefore social distancing was to blame, but that if it were to _really_ die down due to it, the measures would seem like an over-reaction to a certain segment of the populace. I think that, while a bit presumptuous, will hold true.
ceejayoz 7y ago
Given the different dates (and levels of aggressiveness) countries are enforcing social distancing, it should be quite refutable.
orblivion 7y ago
Whether it's social distancing or some other factor, the important point here I think is that it wouldn't have died down on its own. For you to look at the positive outcome alone and say "see, it wasn't a problem to begin with!" is just as irrefutable as to say it was the social distancing. So you have to use understanding of the disease, logic, data from other countries, etc, to come to your conclusion. (You ask an annoying, but fair and important question here. We shouldn't lose our skeptical mind.)

ihaveajob 7y ago

Indeed. Just 2 days ago I was talking to someone who was annoyed by people taking measures: "See, in China they're already seeing infections going down! No point in taking all these measures!" Without apparently realizing the reason why they're going down is extreme is precisely those extreme measures.

irq11 7y ago
There’s not much evidence that the extreme “lockdown” decisions made by China had a significant impact on the outcome either way. Social distancing, contact tracing and isolation of the sick work well, and that was almost certainly the critical portion of the response. For example, this paper makes a solid argument that the travel ban delayed the epidemic across china by only a few days: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/05/science.aba9757?fbclid=IwAR38_7HG3EXLTUxmXs7VGa_s-wW9Cj4OBElrQQ24oHx93mmA6XysDn-c7Yw https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/05/scie...
- im3w1l 7y ago
  The big issue we have seen with contact tracing in this pandemic is that it doesn't catch everyone. Those contacts you didn't find start new chains that you need to find and disrupt, but doing that requires more tests than are available: People who haven't been traveling are simply denied tests. So you never find those chains, and you get out of control community spread.
- ihaveajob 7y ago
  The problem with local, less aggressive measures is that people act in their self interest to bypass them for convenience or safety, and they make the problem worse. Recent examples: - Lockdown in northern Italy: People ran to the south taking the virus with them. - Schools closing, folks asked to work from home in Madrid: Families drive to the coast where bars and restaurants are full. I agree that in a place where compliance with social distance measures is high (I'm thinking South Korea, Japan), that would be enough. But that doesn't work everywhere.

enitihas 7y ago

I think it is fine to let the idiots win on this one and rub it in our face forever. I would be willing to boost the ego of anyone if we can contain this.

Fnoord 7y ago
How will they affect the next corona virus or other pandemic though? They'll be able to see "COVID-19 was a joke, this one will be too".
- enitihas 7y ago
  I mean if we have arrived at a point where majority of the people can't be convinced of the existence of this, and the only way to make them understand is to do some damage, we have bigger problems as a society in front of us. You don't throw a kid under a bus if he doesn't understand you, you just keep trying with incentives and maybe minor punishments.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    It isn't about a popularity context. It only takes 1 harmful idiot (see the story behind Patient 31, linked elsewhere in this thread).
- FriendlyNormie 7y ago
  You do understand that everything would have been fine if we simply pretended this virus didn’t exist, right? A few extremely old people would have died slightly sooner. That’s it.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    The disease is extremely contagious. Hospitals would've been even more overburdened as they currently are if we just "did nothing" because it would've spread much quicker. You might get to the point where you need to make a choice between who you're going to accept in the hospital (younger people then get the fast lane over the elder due to potential higher amount of life years being saved). I believe its like that in Italy at this point. If old people quarantine themselves the chances of them not getting this disease increase. I know a few elder (including loved ones) who I don't want to see passing away, so I have an interest in this. On a different note, I also find it selfish and distasteful to feel careless about big groups of other people based on discriminatory elements such as age.

Aeolun 7y ago

It’s like the IT dilemma all over again.

neuronic 7y ago

At my work people are ridiculing the serious response and extreme measure by countries. They boasted about buying now cheap tickets to fly on vacation instead of "suffering through" home office as ordered by our company. These are educated people. Doesn't seem to save them from ignorance though, as they are on the "just a flu" train.

drummer 7y ago
Smart people to be sure. The global hysteria for a simple flu is mind boggling.