5 ms·

Stop with the doomsday panic. This lockdown thing isn’t going to last more than a few weeks at most—at least without massive social upheaval. Source: my ill

Stop with the doomsday panic. This lockdown thing isn’t going to last more than a few weeks at most—at least without massive social upheaval. Source: my ill informed opinion, same as yours. same source as yours.

coldtea 7y ago
>Stop with the doomsday panic. This lockdown thing isn’t going to last more than a few weeks at most—at least without massive social upheaval. Social upheaval against a "lockdown" becomes a moot point if people you know keep dropping dead.
- dylan604 7y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 Until this happens, I won't really think it was a "big deal" at all, and more along the lines of being merely a flesh wound.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Yeah, give it a month and come back to this comment section
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  People will start dropping dead from social unrest, addiction, substance abuse, suicide, etc. this “lockdown” isn’t free. It has massive health impacts that could easily outweight any lives saved by the lockdown. People need to put on their critical thinking caps around here. What is the end game of this lockdown? What data is it based on? How will we know when to end it—given all factors, which include vastly more than slowing the spread of the virus. Also stop downvoting people asking questions. Asking questions and thinking critically and rationally is what this forum is supposed to be about.
  - empath75 7y ago
    The end game of the lockdown is the disease burning out over the course of 9 months instead of 1 month, giving more time to find a treatment or vaccine and fewer people dying untreated because hospitals are full. The alternative is to let 2 million Americans die this summer.
  - traitsnspecs 7y ago
    Yup, my gut feeling is that follow on effects from rampant unemployment and financial insecurity will have a much larger effect (via stress-induced heart attacks, suicide, etc.) than the 3.4% mortality rate among reported cases (WHO numbers, not all infected, maybe not even most infected.) I would love to see an actual statistical comparison. spookthesunset is making an excellent point. Unless we know that deaths from the virus are greater than the deaths caused by the second-and-third-order effects of panicking, you can't say for sure that the lockdown is the best thing to do right now.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Unless we know that deaths from the virus are greater than the deaths caused by the second-and-third-order effects of panicking Do you believe that when the death toll raises from non-panicking and not imposing a lockdown (not to mention the total saturation of the healthcare system), that wont create even more panic and self-lockdown -- and have their own second and third order effects?
      - traitsnspecs 7y ago
        Yes, and this is why - the population of investors is honestly not all that panicky. If people start dying, investors will watch the death rate, and companies' share prices will reflect some instability but it will be somewhat in line with the actual economic impact, which traders are smart enough to price it at the small level it would actually be given the mortality rate. By imposing lockdown, we have created a real economic slowdown, that traders are smart enough to deem catastrophic (because a month or restauranteurs going without wages is actually catastrophic and represents a much larger loss of future incomes that the still-small-but-blown-up-in-the-media death rate from the unchecked coronavirus.) Unlike the non-lockdown option, there is no optimistic case. You can't say, "earnings are slow, but people will be sorry if they panic sell because when the media frenzy dies down things will settle." You have to say, "earnings are slow, and might not actually pick up again because the lockdown lost a bunch of people their job."
- markkanof 7y ago
  How long do young healthy people, who have been put out of work by shutdowns put up with this? Some number of weeks seems workable, but until 2021?
rosybox 7y ago
Doomsday panic? Ill informed opinion? I'm literally looking at the chart used by the White House that comes from the data generated by the UK government. Look for yourself: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  For that one paper you showed me you’ll find another dozen research papers that say something entirely different. Until we know how many people have this or had it, suggesting multi-month lockdowns is ill informed, dangerous doomsday nonsense. PS: while bitching about downvotes is lame, it is quite disappointing to see HN devolve into yet another panic fueled echo chamber where only “rooting for” the worst case scenario is tolerated. Don’t let this place turn into an echo chamber people. There are plenty of subreddits and social media groups where you can get your fill of doomsday scenarios. This place bills itself as full of rational thinking people, let’s put on our critical thinking caps and consider the problem from all angles. Ps: /r/corvid19 seems to be one of the few places on the internet where people are discussing this stuff rationally and not immediately jumping to the worst case scenario.
  - rosybox 7y ago
    What research papers have you seen with more optimistic projections? You're calling the projections that two governments are relying on as ill informed based on what credentials?
    - spookthesunset 7y ago
      We don’t have enough data or understanding to project anything. Many countries stupidly aren’t doing pervasive testing. Places that do have pervasive testing (some town in Italy, South Korea, and Singapore) suggest this virus is widespread and has a >1% death rate. But this data is early and subject to change. Suggesting we are going to be locked for months or years is irresponsible fear mongering at best.
ajiang 7y ago
This comment will not age well. I'll remind you in 14 days.

coldtea 7y ago

>Stop with the doomsday panic. This lockdown thing isn’t going to last more than a few weeks at most—at least without massive social upheaval. Social upheaval against a "lockdown" becomes a moot point if people you know keep dropping dead.

dylan604 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 Until this happens, I won't really think it was a "big deal" at all, and more along the lines of being merely a flesh wound.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Yeah, give it a month and come back to this comment section
spookthesunset 7y ago
People will start dropping dead from social unrest, addiction, substance abuse, suicide, etc. this “lockdown” isn’t free. It has massive health impacts that could easily outweight any lives saved by the lockdown. People need to put on their critical thinking caps around here. What is the end game of this lockdown? What data is it based on? How will we know when to end it—given all factors, which include vastly more than slowing the spread of the virus. Also stop downvoting people asking questions. Asking questions and thinking critically and rationally is what this forum is supposed to be about.
- empath75 7y ago
  The end game of the lockdown is the disease burning out over the course of 9 months instead of 1 month, giving more time to find a treatment or vaccine and fewer people dying untreated because hospitals are full. The alternative is to let 2 million Americans die this summer.
- traitsnspecs 7y ago
  Yup, my gut feeling is that follow on effects from rampant unemployment and financial insecurity will have a much larger effect (via stress-induced heart attacks, suicide, etc.) than the 3.4% mortality rate among reported cases (WHO numbers, not all infected, maybe not even most infected.) I would love to see an actual statistical comparison. spookthesunset is making an excellent point. Unless we know that deaths from the virus are greater than the deaths caused by the second-and-third-order effects of panicking, you can't say for sure that the lockdown is the best thing to do right now.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Unless we know that deaths from the virus are greater than the deaths caused by the second-and-third-order effects of panicking Do you believe that when the death toll raises from non-panicking and not imposing a lockdown (not to mention the total saturation of the healthcare system), that wont create even more panic and self-lockdown -- and have their own second and third order effects?
    - traitsnspecs 7y ago
      Yes, and this is why - the population of investors is honestly not all that panicky. If people start dying, investors will watch the death rate, and companies' share prices will reflect some instability but it will be somewhat in line with the actual economic impact, which traders are smart enough to price it at the small level it would actually be given the mortality rate. By imposing lockdown, we have created a real economic slowdown, that traders are smart enough to deem catastrophic (because a month or restauranteurs going without wages is actually catastrophic and represents a much larger loss of future incomes that the still-small-but-blown-up-in-the-media death rate from the unchecked coronavirus.) Unlike the non-lockdown option, there is no optimistic case. You can't say, "earnings are slow, but people will be sorry if they panic sell because when the media frenzy dies down things will settle." You have to say, "earnings are slow, and might not actually pick up again because the lockdown lost a bunch of people their job."
markkanof 7y ago
How long do young healthy people, who have been put out of work by shutdowns put up with this? Some number of weeks seems workable, but until 2021?

rosybox 7y ago

Doomsday panic? Ill informed opinion? I'm literally looking at the chart used by the White House that comes from the data generated by the UK government. Look for yourself: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

spookthesunset 7y ago
For that one paper you showed me you’ll find another dozen research papers that say something entirely different. Until we know how many people have this or had it, suggesting multi-month lockdowns is ill informed, dangerous doomsday nonsense. PS: while bitching about downvotes is lame, it is quite disappointing to see HN devolve into yet another panic fueled echo chamber where only “rooting for” the worst case scenario is tolerated. Don’t let this place turn into an echo chamber people. There are plenty of subreddits and social media groups where you can get your fill of doomsday scenarios. This place bills itself as full of rational thinking people, let’s put on our critical thinking caps and consider the problem from all angles. Ps: /r/corvid19 seems to be one of the few places on the internet where people are discussing this stuff rationally and not immediately jumping to the worst case scenario.
- rosybox 7y ago
  What research papers have you seen with more optimistic projections? You're calling the projections that two governments are relying on as ill informed based on what credentials?
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    We don’t have enough data or understanding to project anything. Many countries stupidly aren’t doing pervasive testing. Places that do have pervasive testing (some town in Italy, South Korea, and Singapore) suggest this virus is widespread and has a >1% death rate. But this data is early and subject to change. Suggesting we are going to be locked for months or years is irresponsible fear mongering at best.

ajiang 7y ago

This comment will not age well. I'll remind you in 14 days.