6 ms·

There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later. Studies supporting stuff like lockdown or containment

There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later. Studies supporting stuff like lockdown or containment fatigue is also sorely lacking. Basing our epidemic response on this is completely bonkers. The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. The government should at least have the balls to admit it and not hide behind 'science'. (The only issue with closing schools which might affect the healthcare system is childcare for healthcare workers. This is already in place as a mitigation in other countries.)

Angostura 7y ago
> There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later Yes there are, as set out in the chief medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. > The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. The government should at least have the balls to admit it and not hide behind 'science'. So, to be clear do you think the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific advisor were simply lying about the science?
- pnako 7y ago
  I'm so glad the tech bros, here and on twitter, are on top of this epidemic. I don't trust the professors of medicine and scientists advising our governments either if I can't see some Python code and a condescending tweet about how no one understands exponential growth.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The current response to the outbreak in the UK/US is supposedly being driven by "behavioral modeling", which basically means glorified techbro-Python code. So your argument is backwards, if anything. The WHO didn't used to think of "lockdowns" as a recommended approach either, but they're now changing their mind, as this has worked in China and elsewhere.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- stareatgoats 7y ago
  Let's turn the argument around: do you really think the top officials in charge in charge of advising the governments do not have in their directives a need to consider economic impacts of their recommendations (implicitly, explicitly or self imposed)? Do you think they would be open about that in their outward communication? If you think "no" or "yes" respectively, lets make sure to return to these comments when the dust settles. I don't have the answer, but the observed behavior fits this scenario, at least with the British and Swedish authorities, those I have observed the closest.
- starfallg 7y ago
  >Yes there are, as set out in the medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. And these drawbacks specifically to the health system are...? >So, to be clear do you think the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific advisor were simply lying about the science? Did I imply that? Just because they chose a path with more emphasis on economic and social considerations (compared to other countries) doesn't mean they are lying and that it isn't science based.
- nl 7y ago
  Yes there are, as set out in the chief medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. Can you link to a transcript or something?
  - corford 7y ago
    Might be in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAE8-e5_EKY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAE8-e5_EKY
jariel 7y ago
There's a very real risk of economic cataclysm, which will roil through the economy and hit many people very hard, causing all sorts of disruptions, negative health outcomes across the board. Tourism, restaurants, entertainment is 3-7% of the economy (more in Italy) and layoffs are coming very swiftly. Taxes fall, unemployment payments spike, it rolls over into other parts of the economy, bad loans, credit dries up, stock markets dive, investment plummets. The rich will lose some net-worth it will hit the poor physically in many ways, for example, millions more left without health insurance in the middle of a crisis. Taiwan and S. Korea have been able to keep a lid on the virus without getting draconian, maybe we can follow their example. But there's quite a lot of risk in these 'lockdown' decisions, it's not just about immediate health outcomes. So it's not an easy decision. I should add, the letter is very well written, it's oddly not dramatic, given the gravity of the situation.
- starfallg 7y ago
  Do you think we in the UK will be insulated by this global event just because we didn't close our schools? Even if our hotels are open, who will come? This will only delay our recovery once the dust settles. No-one is asking for a complete shutdown right now. In fact, the whole reason to start implementing more serious measures (like school closures) now is to prevent the type of lockdown we are seeing in Italy and Wuhan as a result of the health system being overrun.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "Even if our hotels are open, who will come?" >>> only about 20% of hotel stays are international. [1] "just because we didn't close our schools" >> its far, far beyond schools. "No-one is asking for a complete shutdown right now." >> Well, public events, Football, and almost all Entertainment are shut down. Restaurants are down 50%. Taxis, trains, public transport. Tanning parlors. Yoga. Fitness clubs. Swimming pools. Theaters. Shopping malls, high-street - they're all getting clobbered, without 'total shut down' and it's going to hurt. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/564673/accommodation-domestic-international-tourists-overnight-stays/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564673/accommodation-dom...
zozbot234 7y ago
> The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. But this is just as bonkers. It totally ignores the blow to the economy of people dying with no effective treatment because the healthcare system is overwhelmed. If that's really the covert motivation they're being penny-wise but pound foolish to an unprecedented degree, even if we were to ignore the obvious ethical issues with this sort of response.
- peteretep 7y ago
  > It totally ignores the blow to the economy of people dying People who are over 70 dying in large numbers is a humanitarian crisis, not an economic one.
  - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
    1. It won't be just the over 70s if no one can get proper treatment at a hospital for their traffic accident, chronic disease, hernia ... 2. Severe cases include a wide variety of ages. The over 70s are just the first to hit the ERs
  - toyg 7y ago
    This is complacency. A lot of under-50s, particularly male smokers and others with weakened lungs or immune system, are at risk; even fit under-40s can require weeks of externally-provided ventilation to survive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ValentineC 7y ago
> There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later. Studies supporting stuff like lockdown or containment fatigue is also sorely lacking. Basing our epidemic response on this is completely bonkers. Anecdote: I'm in Singapore, which was one of the first countries hit by the virus. People are getting complacent from how well our government seems to be handling the virus. I wouldn't say that places are as crowded as before (since we've been introducing gradual travel restrictions), but our public areas are still pretty packed, and people are still going out and mingling despite government advice on social distancing. The government knows this, and has announced that they will introduce measures over a staggered period to slow down transmission [1]. [1] https://www.gov.sg/article/pm-lee-hsien-loong-on-the-covid-19-situation-in-singapore-12-mar https://www.gov.sg/article/pm-lee-hsien-loong-on-the-covid-1... — "They will be extra 'brakes', to be implemented when we see a spike in cases. The extra brakes will slow down transmission of the virus, prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and help bring the numbers back down."
- starfallg 7y ago
  I take your point. I'm not disputing the existence of fatigue, but rather on whether we know enough about it to quantify it and to use it as our guiding principle for epidemic response. And I think the the Singapore approach here is the right way - additional measure can be taken in order to shore up public behaviour as people's behaviour start to revert. In any case the UK public by-and-large is behaving much less seriously than Singapore. Having just been back from Asia on a trip and working from home as a result, I still have people asking me as of a few days ago whether all of this talk in the news is an overreaction.

Angostura 7y ago

> There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later Yes there are, as set out in the chief medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. > The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. The government should at least have the balls to admit it and not hide behind 'science'. So, to be clear do you think the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific advisor were simply lying about the science?

pnako 7y ago
I'm so glad the tech bros, here and on twitter, are on top of this epidemic. I don't trust the professors of medicine and scientists advising our governments either if I can't see some Python code and a condescending tweet about how no one understands exponential growth.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The current response to the outbreak in the UK/US is supposedly being driven by "behavioral modeling", which basically means glorified techbro-Python code. So your argument is backwards, if anything. The WHO didn't used to think of "lockdowns" as a recommended approach either, but they're now changing their mind, as this has worked in China and elsewhere.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stareatgoats 7y ago
Let's turn the argument around: do you really think the top officials in charge in charge of advising the governments do not have in their directives a need to consider economic impacts of their recommendations (implicitly, explicitly or self imposed)? Do you think they would be open about that in their outward communication? If you think "no" or "yes" respectively, lets make sure to return to these comments when the dust settles. I don't have the answer, but the observed behavior fits this scenario, at least with the British and Swedish authorities, those I have observed the closest.
starfallg 7y ago
>Yes there are, as set out in the medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. And these drawbacks specifically to the health system are...? >So, to be clear do you think the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific advisor were simply lying about the science? Did I imply that? Just because they chose a path with more emphasis on economic and social considerations (compared to other countries) doesn't mean they are lying and that it isn't science based.
nl 7y ago
Yes there are, as set out in the chief medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference. Can you link to a transcript or something?
- corford 7y ago
  Might be in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAE8-e5_EKY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAE8-e5_EKY

jariel 7y ago

There's a very real risk of economic cataclysm, which will roil through the economy and hit many people very hard, causing all sorts of disruptions, negative health outcomes across the board. Tourism, restaurants, entertainment is 3-7% of the economy (more in Italy) and layoffs are coming very swiftly. Taxes fall, unemployment payments spike, it rolls over into other parts of the economy, bad loans, credit dries up, stock markets dive, investment plummets. The rich will lose some net-worth it will hit the poor physically in many ways, for example, millions more left without health insurance in the middle of a crisis. Taiwan and S. Korea have been able to keep a lid on the virus without getting draconian, maybe we can follow their example. But there's quite a lot of risk in these 'lockdown' decisions, it's not just about immediate health outcomes. So it's not an easy decision. I should add, the letter is very well written, it's oddly not dramatic, given the gravity of the situation.

starfallg 7y ago
Do you think we in the UK will be insulated by this global event just because we didn't close our schools? Even if our hotels are open, who will come? This will only delay our recovery once the dust settles. No-one is asking for a complete shutdown right now. In fact, the whole reason to start implementing more serious measures (like school closures) now is to prevent the type of lockdown we are seeing in Italy and Wuhan as a result of the health system being overrun.
- jariel 7y ago
  "Even if our hotels are open, who will come?" >>> only about 20% of hotel stays are international. [1] "just because we didn't close our schools" >> its far, far beyond schools. "No-one is asking for a complete shutdown right now." >> Well, public events, Football, and almost all Entertainment are shut down. Restaurants are down 50%. Taxis, trains, public transport. Tanning parlors. Yoga. Fitness clubs. Swimming pools. Theaters. Shopping malls, high-street - they're all getting clobbered, without 'total shut down' and it's going to hurt. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/564673/accommodation-domestic-international-tourists-overnight-stays/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564673/accommodation-dom...

zozbot234 7y ago

> The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. But this is just as bonkers. It totally ignores the blow to the economy of people dying with no effective treatment because the healthcare system is overwhelmed. If that's really the covert motivation they're being penny-wise but pound foolish to an unprecedented degree, even if we were to ignore the obvious ethical issues with this sort of response.

peteretep 7y ago
> It totally ignores the blow to the economy of people dying People who are over 70 dying in large numbers is a humanitarian crisis, not an economic one.
- AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
  1. It won't be just the over 70s if no one can get proper treatment at a hospital for their traffic accident, chronic disease, hernia ... 2. Severe cases include a wide variety of ages. The over 70s are just the first to hit the ERs
- toyg 7y ago
  This is complacency. A lot of under-50s, particularly male smokers and others with weakened lungs or immune system, are at risk; even fit under-40s can require weeks of externally-provided ventilation to survive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ValentineC 7y ago

> There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later. Studies supporting stuff like lockdown or containment fatigue is also sorely lacking. Basing our epidemic response on this is completely bonkers. Anecdote: I'm in Singapore, which was one of the first countries hit by the virus. People are getting complacent from how well our government seems to be handling the virus. I wouldn't say that places are as crowded as before (since we've been introducing gradual travel restrictions), but our public areas are still pretty packed, and people are still going out and mingling despite government advice on social distancing. The government knows this, and has announced that they will introduce measures over a staggered period to slow down transmission [1]. [1] https://www.gov.sg/article/pm-lee-hsien-loong-on-the-covid-19-situation-in-singapore-12-mar https://www.gov.sg/article/pm-lee-hsien-loong-on-the-covid-1... — "They will be extra 'brakes', to be implemented when we see a spike in cases. The extra brakes will slow down transmission of the virus, prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and help bring the numbers back down."

starfallg 7y ago
I take your point. I'm not disputing the existence of fatigue, but rather on whether we know enough about it to quantify it and to use it as our guiding principle for epidemic response. And I think the the Singapore approach here is the right way - additional measure can be taken in order to shore up public behaviour as people's behaviour start to revert. In any case the UK public by-and-large is behaving much less seriously than Singapore. Having just been back from Asia on a trip and working from home as a result, I still have people asking me as of a few days ago whether all of this talk in the news is an overreaction.