13 ms·

But it hasn't ramped up yet and they loosen the lockdown already by monday. The got R down to .7 at best and that only on average, not in the hotspots. I bet i

But it hasn't ramped up yet and they loosen the lockdown already by monday. The got R down to .7 at best and that only on average, not in the hotspots. I bet in 2 weeks (I hope it's not even more delay) they will notice that (partially) opening schools and shops was a mistake and will have to row back. I just hope they will be as lucky as with the initial curve-flattening. Germany has flattened the curve, but that still means they are roughly on it's summit. There are still more infected than ever and every misstep might be costly. Here are the different regions, just recovered/dead are not included in the graph I think: https://preview.redd.it/x7g0xnlblds41.png?width=894&format=png&auto=webp&s=b104f985de617b4f55e0585a3da32fa63778403d https://preview.redd.it/x7g0xnlblds41.png?width=894&format=p... Generally it peaked at 70k infected and is back at 50k https://studylib.net/coronavirus#country-de https://studylib.net/coronavirus#country-de

KarlKemp 7y ago
I believe it’s very much expected to see some resurgence and to adjust measures accordingly. Over time, it might become easier to measure which interventions are most effective and to focus on those. Schools are certainly a risky gamble, but their closing is also among the most expensive measures. Many people are staying at home because they have no options for their children, including many doctors and nurses.
- anotheryou 7y ago
  You might be right. I wished they'd publish what exactly they aim for and what the plan for different outcomes of this experiment is. For now they seem to aim at R = 1, which means waiting for the vaccine with whatever is possible to keep it at 1. (Probably not much more than barbers and very few school classes.)
  - lowdose 7y ago
    Isn't more important to take decisions instead of holding everyone upfront accountable for any mistake?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      It's important to make the right decisions, and that won't happen without some concrete plan for what the decisions are meant to accomplish.
- holri 7y ago
  In Austria they closed the schools but at the same time offer care in the school buildings for children whose parents have to work.
  - joncrane 7y ago
    Doesn't this defeat the purpose?
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      Some reduction is better than no reduction.
    - cstejerean 7y ago
      No, because that’s a fraction of the kids.
    - holri 7y ago
      It works really well. Austrias R0 dropped down to 0.7 after lockdown
- ck2 7y ago
  love how people casually say "oops" and "we'll adjust" those "oops" are painful suffering deaths that could have been avoided everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage all could have been avoided with a true two week lockdown to let the virus die off, but nope, trade two weeks for months more of "resurgence and adjust measures" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-symptoms-lung-kidney-heart-covid-19-us-doctors-a9466701.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru... this is also why I get upset at "just let everyone get infected for herd immunity" arguments - this isn't a cold, it does -damage-
  - droithomme 7y ago
    It's astonishing how virulently your very sensible post is getting downvoted. By bots? Or actual HN real people? Either possibility is very very bad for humanity. > even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage The problematic ACE2 receptor sites are also in the brain, intestines and liver and have seen damage. The brain one is the most alarming one from a survival perspective. We survive, but with irreparable permanent brain damage. We're no longer ourselves, we have a different personality, and we are incapable of doing our previous jobs. Is death preferable?
    - anotheryou 7y ago
      I doubt it's bots. It's just a polarizing topic.
  - orangecat 7y ago
    everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided What is mindless is refusing to consider any action that might conceivably increase the number of deaths without considering tradeoffs. Or should we shut down the country during every flu season and universally limit cars to 20mph? this isn't a cold, it does -damage- Lockdowns also do damage; not just economic and psychological but also medical. We've stopped "elective" procedures like cancer screenings, which is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes for some patients. I agree that as of right now it's best to maintain the lockdown, but in order to make that determination we really do have to use numbers.
dirkt 7y ago
Until a vaccine is found, 60-70% of the population will need to get infected for "herd immunity". While at the same time making sure infection doesn't grow exponentially, and overwhelms the health system. Loosening the lockdown, and being prepared to row back, will achieve that if done carefully, while at the same time getting the economy slowly back to normal. And that probably are a lot more people are already infected without symptoms will help with that. Trying to somehow contain the infection won't work, because it will just get carried in from the outside again, eventually.
- lnsru 7y ago
  Sorry, I have no knowledge on virology topics. But this “herd immunity” thing is a complete nonsense. Politicians may repeat it as long as they want, but it still makes no sense. 50 million people must be infected, 1,5 million will die. It will take many years. While immunity very probably(????) disappear after months. Asian countries had many different viruses in the past, all of the contained. Why is it so difficult to follow their path?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Asian countries have not contained all viral outbreaks in the past. In both 1957 and 1968, Asian-origin flu epidemics killed millions. It's possible that containment could have been achieved if every country had swiftly followed Korea's example in early February, but there's no precedent for containing a human-to-human transmissible disease with millions of cases across the world without a vaccine.
    - lnsru 7y ago
      Thank you very much. I am too young to remember these events. But I am also confident, that current technology is better than 50 years ago.
  - cipher_system 7y ago
solarkraft 7y ago
An important issue raised by Karl Lauterbach (health-focussed politician) is that we may have averted a full crisis (for now), but every loosening of the measures will lead to a higher spread of the virus and that directly means more deaths. We should think hard whether we should only focus on free ICU beds.
luspr 7y ago
By what metric will it turn out to be a mistake? I think there are better alternative to the course taken, but a universal, indefinite lockdown is neither appropriate nor feasible. What would you prefer - and again by what standard and which metrics?
- anotheryou 7y ago
  If they have to row back completely and be worse off than before it would be a clear mistake. Anything in between is debatable and includes the difficult mix of economy vs. health vs. mental health etc.

KarlKemp 7y ago

I believe it’s very much expected to see some resurgence and to adjust measures accordingly. Over time, it might become easier to measure which interventions are most effective and to focus on those. Schools are certainly a risky gamble, but their closing is also among the most expensive measures. Many people are staying at home because they have no options for their children, including many doctors and nurses.

anotheryou 7y ago
You might be right. I wished they'd publish what exactly they aim for and what the plan for different outcomes of this experiment is. For now they seem to aim at R = 1, which means waiting for the vaccine with whatever is possible to keep it at 1. (Probably not much more than barbers and very few school classes.)
- lowdose 7y ago
  Isn't more important to take decisions instead of holding everyone upfront accountable for any mistake?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    It's important to make the right decisions, and that won't happen without some concrete plan for what the decisions are meant to accomplish.
holri 7y ago
In Austria they closed the schools but at the same time offer care in the school buildings for children whose parents have to work.
- joncrane 7y ago
  Doesn't this defeat the purpose?
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Some reduction is better than no reduction.
  - cstejerean 7y ago
    No, because that’s a fraction of the kids.
  - holri 7y ago
    It works really well. Austrias R0 dropped down to 0.7 after lockdown
ck2 7y ago
love how people casually say "oops" and "we'll adjust" those "oops" are painful suffering deaths that could have been avoided everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage all could have been avoided with a true two week lockdown to let the virus die off, but nope, trade two weeks for months more of "resurgence and adjust measures" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-symptoms-lung-kidney-heart-covid-19-us-doctors-a9466701.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru... this is also why I get upset at "just let everyone get infected for herd immunity" arguments - this isn't a cold, it does -damage-
- droithomme 7y ago
  It's astonishing how virulently your very sensible post is getting downvoted. By bots? Or actual HN real people? Either possibility is very very bad for humanity. > even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage The problematic ACE2 receptor sites are also in the brain, intestines and liver and have seen damage. The brain one is the most alarming one from a survival perspective. We survive, but with irreparable permanent brain damage. We're no longer ourselves, we have a different personality, and we are incapable of doing our previous jobs. Is death preferable?
  - anotheryou 7y ago
    I doubt it's bots. It's just a polarizing topic.
- orangecat 7y ago
  everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided What is mindless is refusing to consider any action that might conceivably increase the number of deaths without considering tradeoffs. Or should we shut down the country during every flu season and universally limit cars to 20mph? this isn't a cold, it does -damage- Lockdowns also do damage; not just economic and psychological but also medical. We've stopped "elective" procedures like cancer screenings, which is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes for some patients. I agree that as of right now it's best to maintain the lockdown, but in order to make that determination we really do have to use numbers.

dirkt 7y ago

Until a vaccine is found, 60-70% of the population will need to get infected for "herd immunity". While at the same time making sure infection doesn't grow exponentially, and overwhelms the health system. Loosening the lockdown, and being prepared to row back, will achieve that if done carefully, while at the same time getting the economy slowly back to normal. And that probably are a lot more people are already infected without symptoms will help with that. Trying to somehow contain the infection won't work, because it will just get carried in from the outside again, eventually.

lnsru 7y ago
Sorry, I have no knowledge on virology topics. But this “herd immunity” thing is a complete nonsense. Politicians may repeat it as long as they want, but it still makes no sense. 50 million people must be infected, 1,5 million will die. It will take many years. While immunity very probably(????) disappear after months. Asian countries had many different viruses in the past, all of the contained. Why is it so difficult to follow their path?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Asian countries have not contained all viral outbreaks in the past. In both 1957 and 1968, Asian-origin flu epidemics killed millions. It's possible that containment could have been achieved if every country had swiftly followed Korea's example in early February, but there's no precedent for containing a human-to-human transmissible disease with millions of cases across the world without a vaccine.
  - lnsru 7y ago
    Thank you very much. I am too young to remember these events. But I am also confident, that current technology is better than 50 years ago.
- cipher_system 7y ago

solarkraft 7y ago

An important issue raised by Karl Lauterbach (health-focussed politician) is that we may have averted a full crisis (for now), but every loosening of the measures will lead to a higher spread of the virus and that directly means more deaths. We should think hard whether we should only focus on free ICU beds.

luspr 7y ago

By what metric will it turn out to be a mistake? I think there are better alternative to the course taken, but a universal, indefinite lockdown is neither appropriate nor feasible. What would you prefer - and again by what standard and which metrics?

anotheryou 7y ago
If they have to row back completely and be worse off than before it would be a clear mistake. Anything in between is debatable and includes the difficult mix of economy vs. health vs. mental health etc.