4 ms·

I think that at least US governments have done a poor job explaining the motivation behind the drastic precautionary orders. For a brief period, there was much

I think that at least US governments have done a poor job explaining the motivation behind the drastic precautionary orders. For a brief period, there was much talk of "flattening the curve" but I doubt that many people understand how that gets us to "deliberately wreck the economy." This is what people who say it's just flu++ are missing, and I am trying to be sympathetic to their lack of knowledge of exponential math and how medical services plan and allocate their resources. It is the government's job to explain how this is very different from the flu and they are utterly failing to do so in many cases. In fact, I suspect that most people believe that the isolation policies are to protect individuals' health, ie. to prevent even young and healthy people from contracting the virus. And based on this false premise, they are right to be annoyed with the lockdowns. This is important because in a week or two, when the grocery stores start to empty and the lights start to flicker, the rugged individualist-types in the United States are going to start asking "why are we doing this, exactly?" And there is born civil unrest. It is the role of state and national governments to answer this question and they have not been effective in doing so. We are doing this because there are O(10^6) preventable deaths in our future. Not because of the danger to any one young healthy person.

redis_mlc 7y ago
> We are doing this because there are O(10^6) preventable deaths That doesn't appear to be true. Almost everybody who goes on a ventilator dies. Corona virus will infect as many people as any other flu or cold. So it's a valid question - why do we still have a lockdown?
- Juliate 7y ago
  To slow down the spread and ultimately reduce the number of people that will get to go in ICUs, go on a ventilator and/or die. Because those _are_ preventable, if they don't get infected. That, in turn, buys time to medical research & practice to mitigate and cure the disease, so that, later, when someone vulnerable is infected, we'll know better how to take care of them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  > Almost everybody who goes on a ventilator dies. That wouldn't be a problem if so, to be honest. The problem is that a patient usually survives, but it takes 3 weeks in the ICU to do so.
- takeda 7y ago
  Flu doesn't spread as well, because large number of people take a vaccine. The reason for lockdown is to slow things down, so we don't get to the point where doctors have to decide who to help or who not. Also a lot of people can't connect in their mind that when hospitals are full, it also affects people who didn't even get the virus.
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    > The reason for lockdown is to slow things down, so we don't get to the point where doctors have to decide who to help or who not. But one must think that this can't go on indefinitely or for very long time frames. It buys time to reduce the number of "active" cases, but only to ensure that once lockdown is lifted one is able to do tracing and isolation for new cases. Realistically, we'll have to live with this virus (and the associated risk) for quite a while. The time frames for a "cure" if it is found vary from months for drugs (if those in current trials prove to be useful) to years for a vaccine (which like the drugs may not be effective). You can keep people holed up for a few months at best. You won't be able to do so for one or more years, unless you want to face severe consequences (and I'm not talking about the economy, I'm talking of long-term psychological effects).
yodsanklai 7y ago
> This is what people who say it's just flu++ are missing, and I am trying to be sympathetic to their lack of knowledge This is very condescending. There are still a lot of unknowns, and there are smart people (for instance [1]) out there who think the cure may be worth than the disease. We urgently need more data. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ
- jordanpg 7y ago
  Reasonable people can certainly disagree about whether the cure is worse than the disease. That said, the world's governments have made a decision to react in a certain way, and I maintain that my intuition tells me that most people don't understand the real reason for the lockdowns. They think it is to prevent them personally from getting sick. That's not really true. The point is to prevent the medical infrastructure from becoming overwhelmed so that if and when people do become sick, they can be given their best shot at recovery.
  - yodsanklai 7y ago
    > The point is to prevent the medical infrastructure from becoming overwhelmed I think this is clear for most people. I'm not American but I've watched Trump recent talk and they explained this clearly in a way everybody could understand. What they didn't explain though is the post-lockdown strategy. Most likely, in a few weeks, only a small fraction of the US population will be immune, and the problem won't be solved anymore than it was before the lockdown (except that the country is stalled). The virus will still be there, and there won't be any vaccine. I'd like them to think a few steps ahead and tell us what will be their plan.
    - takeda 7y ago
      The people who are currently sick will either recover or die. Lock down can make the effective R0 below 1. When it is below 1 the disease will die on its own. Of course we would have to be locked for a very long time, but even if we won't wait that long the active infection curve will go down and buy us some time.

redis_mlc 7y ago

> We are doing this because there are O(10^6) preventable deaths That doesn't appear to be true. Almost everybody who goes on a ventilator dies. Corona virus will infect as many people as any other flu or cold. So it's a valid question - why do we still have a lockdown?

Juliate 7y ago
To slow down the spread and ultimately reduce the number of people that will get to go in ICUs, go on a ventilator and/or die. Because those _are_ preventable, if they don't get infected. That, in turn, buys time to medical research & practice to mitigate and cure the disease, so that, later, when someone vulnerable is infected, we'll know better how to take care of them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lbeltrame 7y ago
> Almost everybody who goes on a ventilator dies. That wouldn't be a problem if so, to be honest. The problem is that a patient usually survives, but it takes 3 weeks in the ICU to do so.
takeda 7y ago
Flu doesn't spread as well, because large number of people take a vaccine. The reason for lockdown is to slow things down, so we don't get to the point where doctors have to decide who to help or who not. Also a lot of people can't connect in their mind that when hospitals are full, it also affects people who didn't even get the virus.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  > The reason for lockdown is to slow things down, so we don't get to the point where doctors have to decide who to help or who not. But one must think that this can't go on indefinitely or for very long time frames. It buys time to reduce the number of "active" cases, but only to ensure that once lockdown is lifted one is able to do tracing and isolation for new cases. Realistically, we'll have to live with this virus (and the associated risk) for quite a while. The time frames for a "cure" if it is found vary from months for drugs (if those in current trials prove to be useful) to years for a vaccine (which like the drugs may not be effective). You can keep people holed up for a few months at best. You won't be able to do so for one or more years, unless you want to face severe consequences (and I'm not talking about the economy, I'm talking of long-term psychological effects).

yodsanklai 7y ago

> This is what people who say it's just flu++ are missing, and I am trying to be sympathetic to their lack of knowledge This is very condescending. There are still a lot of unknowns, and there are smart people (for instance [1]) out there who think the cure may be worth than the disease. We urgently need more data. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ

jordanpg 7y ago
Reasonable people can certainly disagree about whether the cure is worse than the disease. That said, the world's governments have made a decision to react in a certain way, and I maintain that my intuition tells me that most people don't understand the real reason for the lockdowns. They think it is to prevent them personally from getting sick. That's not really true. The point is to prevent the medical infrastructure from becoming overwhelmed so that if and when people do become sick, they can be given their best shot at recovery.
- yodsanklai 7y ago
  > The point is to prevent the medical infrastructure from becoming overwhelmed I think this is clear for most people. I'm not American but I've watched Trump recent talk and they explained this clearly in a way everybody could understand. What they didn't explain though is the post-lockdown strategy. Most likely, in a few weeks, only a small fraction of the US population will be immune, and the problem won't be solved anymore than it was before the lockdown (except that the country is stalled). The virus will still be there, and there won't be any vaccine. I'd like them to think a few steps ahead and tell us what will be their plan.
  - takeda 7y ago
    The people who are currently sick will either recover or die. Lock down can make the effective R0 below 1. When it is below 1 the disease will die on its own. Of course we would have to be locked for a very long time, but even if we won't wait that long the active infection curve will go down and buy us some time.