5 ms·

I'm pretty confident they'll start copying everyone else in 10-14 days. They are ignoring any sensible model of this and they won't be able to deal with the up

by mnl 7y ago

I'm pretty confident they'll start copying everyone else in 10-14 days. They are ignoring any sensible model of this and they won't be able to deal with the uproar once the numbers reach a psychological threshold. Happened last Sunday in Spain BTW.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> They are ignoring any sensible model of this Meaning what? They've explained their reasoning.
- mnl 7y ago
  That's an aspiration more than a reasoning IMO. Meanwhile that R0=2.28 is doing its thing and it can't be good for the NHS, meaning many ugly pictures. The thing is when tabloids are going to get hysterical about this.
alkonaut 7y ago
Doing what someone else does, but a week later doesn't necesarily mean you made a mistake, or that you are a week late in making a decision.
- mnl 7y ago
  I think it does, you don't wait a week to put out a fire, it gets worse. China has essentially contained it already. Maybe alternating lockdowns and releases we might be able to keep it manageable until there's a vaccine. This is not hard to model once there are a few cases in a population, again IMO.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    > you don't wait a week to put out a fire, it gets worse I don't think putting out a fire has any major adverse effects, so perhaps not the best comparison.
    - mnl 7y ago
      There's always side effects to everything you do, but if we're being picky about the fire analogy (maybe I'd rather go to the beach than putting out a fire right now), I'd agree I should have used a gangrene one.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    How much does every day in lockdown hurt the economy? Flattening out the infection curve too much means increasing the economic harm by a much larger degree. Calling a lockdown a week too early, means continuing it a week extra on the other end or you risk a sudden, unmanageable peak. I don't envy any politician the decision, but pandering to panic and locking down too soon will cause a lot of harm too.
    - new2628 7y ago
      At a larger level, "hurting the economy" may be the best thing to happen in a long time for (1) the environment, e.g. clean air, (2) family time, (3) cutting out some useless activities that go on due to sheer inertia, like formula-1, olympics, auto shows, most conventions, etc., (4) give people and societies a chance to slow down, think through things and refactor a system that was running full speed towards the wall anyway.
      - ubercow13 7y ago
        Doesn't seem so clear. During a recession, you might have less money for investing green technologies. No one will be able to afford an electric car. You might get more family time but the stress of the main earner being unemployed will mean it's not high quality.
        darkwater 7y ago
        I really wonder why we can't all just slow down the money circulation. There are many business and people endangered by the situation? They can't earn enough money? Well they don't have to pay the full price for basic needs, mortgages etc. People living on this stop gaining money like before? Discounts for them as well, they just keep working for the greater good because we are in a unique situation. Rinse and repeat until we go full circle. What's the problem here? The (totally made up number) 15-20% of greedy people who put money first no matter what. It's really sad.
        new2628 7y ago
        > No one will be able to afford an electric car. I realize my opinion may not be the mainstream one, but I think the 2008 financial crisis did more good for the environment than all the "green investments" of the past few decades. > the stress of the main earner being unemployed That can indeed be a problem for families. I hope the crisis will bring about some reduction in consumption/travel, downshifting, rethinking of priorities, simpler living.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  If they do indeed go into lockdown it’s almost certainly a massive mistake.
  - room271 7y ago
    I am not knowledgeable enough to endorse/criticise the plan. But watching the various statements yesterday by the government/scientists it's clear that they do plan for lockdown, just not yet. But it's fully expected in the coming weeks.
- mitchdoogle 7y ago
  It certainly does if your inaction causes lives to be lost. A week or two here can be thousands of more deaths
ascorbic 7y ago
Yes, they've already said that they will bring in those measures in a week or two.

by mnl 7y ago

MaxBarraclough 7y ago

> They are ignoring any sensible model of this Meaning what? They've explained their reasoning.

mnl 7y ago
That's an aspiration more than a reasoning IMO. Meanwhile that R0=2.28 is doing its thing and it can't be good for the NHS, meaning many ugly pictures. The thing is when tabloids are going to get hysterical about this.

alkonaut 7y ago

Doing what someone else does, but a week later doesn't necesarily mean you made a mistake, or that you are a week late in making a decision.

mnl 7y ago
I think it does, you don't wait a week to put out a fire, it gets worse. China has essentially contained it already. Maybe alternating lockdowns and releases we might be able to keep it manageable until there's a vaccine. This is not hard to model once there are a few cases in a population, again IMO.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > you don't wait a week to put out a fire, it gets worse I don't think putting out a fire has any major adverse effects, so perhaps not the best comparison.
  - mnl 7y ago
    There's always side effects to everything you do, but if we're being picky about the fire analogy (maybe I'd rather go to the beach than putting out a fire right now), I'd agree I should have used a gangrene one.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  How much does every day in lockdown hurt the economy? Flattening out the infection curve too much means increasing the economic harm by a much larger degree. Calling a lockdown a week too early, means continuing it a week extra on the other end or you risk a sudden, unmanageable peak. I don't envy any politician the decision, but pandering to panic and locking down too soon will cause a lot of harm too.
  - new2628 7y ago
    At a larger level, "hurting the economy" may be the best thing to happen in a long time for (1) the environment, e.g. clean air, (2) family time, (3) cutting out some useless activities that go on due to sheer inertia, like formula-1, olympics, auto shows, most conventions, etc., (4) give people and societies a chance to slow down, think through things and refactor a system that was running full speed towards the wall anyway.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      Doesn't seem so clear. During a recession, you might have less money for investing green technologies. No one will be able to afford an electric car. You might get more family time but the stress of the main earner being unemployed will mean it's not high quality.
      - darkwater 7y ago
        I really wonder why we can't all just slow down the money circulation. There are many business and people endangered by the situation? They can't earn enough money? Well they don't have to pay the full price for basic needs, mortgages etc. People living on this stop gaining money like before? Discounts for them as well, they just keep working for the greater good because we are in a unique situation. Rinse and repeat until we go full circle. What's the problem here? The (totally made up number) 15-20% of greedy people who put money first no matter what. It's really sad.
      - new2628 7y ago
        > No one will be able to afford an electric car. I realize my opinion may not be the mainstream one, but I think the 2008 financial crisis did more good for the environment than all the "green investments" of the past few decades. > the stress of the main earner being unemployed That can indeed be a problem for families. I hope the crisis will bring about some reduction in consumption/travel, downshifting, rethinking of priorities, simpler living.
thawaway1837 7y ago
If they do indeed go into lockdown it’s almost certainly a massive mistake.
- room271 7y ago
  I am not knowledgeable enough to endorse/criticise the plan. But watching the various statements yesterday by the government/scientists it's clear that they do plan for lockdown, just not yet. But it's fully expected in the coming weeks.
mitchdoogle 7y ago
It certainly does if your inaction causes lives to be lost. A week or two here can be thousands of more deaths

ascorbic 7y ago

Yes, they've already said that they will bring in those measures in a week or two.