4 ms·
> There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns That's false. Aside from common sense, that restricting contact would decrease transmission, China an
by computerex 7y ago
> There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns
That's false. Aside from common sense, that restricting contact would decrease transmission, China and Italy both reduced their infections by employing a strict lockdown. These policies are being borrowed straight from China and Italy. They both had it really bad, and they managed to get on the other side of the peak.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoNo, it is not false. "Common sense" is not evidence, and neither is the experience of China and Italy, because both imposed strict lockdowns. In order to say that these measures were supported by evidence, you would need a country that did not impose strict lockdowns in an otherwise-similar situation, but which had a worse outcome. Sweden may end up being that country, given time, or it may not. As a third possibility, Sweden may impose a strict lockdown, causing us to remain without evidence for the efficacy of strict lockdowns vs. softer measures.
- computerex 7y agoBoth China and Italy had major outbreaks, which were controlled by imposing lockdowns. That's sufficient evidence.
- odshoifsdhfs 7y agoThe problem is you can't be 100% if it was because of the lockdown or how the virus plays out. We in HN and other science based forums always want double-blinded trials of just about anything, but for this lockdown, we just assume it is 100% right and nothing else. I believe a lockdown/travel restrictions would have been effective on case number 1. When you do it on case 1000 it is just ... well... useless I guess?
- mr_toad 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent