5 ms·

The lock-downs weren't necessary. They became necessary when the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices. With co

The lock-downs weren't necessary. They became necessary when the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices. With comprehensive testing we could isolate the affected quickly and accurately, preventing the spread in the first place. Other countries have had success at that. In the absence of sufficient testing though we have to assume that anyone and everyone could be infected, therefor in order to prevent a run away wildfire like scenario which would overwhelm our hospitals (there just aren't enough beds anywhere for everyone to get sick at the same time) isolation becomes the only remaining option to slow the spread and flatten the curve to prevent more people from dying. The dead cannot rebuild a business.

gdilla 7y ago
The lock downs were necessary to keep loads of stupid people ruining any self-responsibility-stay-home-when-sick-don't-have-parties reasonable, less restrictive tactic in place. If you maximize inconvenience, then even these people have a harder time breaking the rules. Still, ya, people violate, but it's much less.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
> the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices. What does that mean?
- TehCorwiz 7y ago
  https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/coronavirus-testing-cdc-fda-red-tape-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/coronavirus-testing-...
  - ethbro 7y ago
    That a government administration that failed to appropriately staff and retain employees finds itself unable to enact emergency policy in a timely and complete manner? I am shocked!
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Standard operating procedure at the FDA is to prohibit everything until it has undergone comprehensive testing. Since this virus didn't exist until recently, neither did the test, so even once the test existed it was illegal to use it and the words swift and efficient are not appropriate to describe the process for changing that. People have been pointing out for years that the FDA's approach is excessively conservative, but the typical response is that they're doing it to save lives, even though there is a point past which being too conservative actually costs lives by keeping life-saving things off the market. This was a prominent example of that actually happening.
samatman 7y ago
The other truly painful move was to discourage the wearing of masks. The US Surgeon General, on March 28th, was on Twitter insisting that wearing masks was contraindicated unless you're coughing or sneezing, or taking care of someone with a confirmed infection. [0] He tagged the WHO and CDC, because he was following their advice. This wasn't deliberately calculated to kill tens of thousands of people and destroy the economy through harsh lockdowns when people started getting really sick. It just... happened to have that effect. [0]: https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1244020292365815809 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12440202923658158...
- agildehaus 7y ago
  Encouraging people to wear masks is extremely controversial. It encourages people to think they have some form of immunity walking about and going places where they otherwise wouldn't have without the false sense of security provided by a mask.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Discouraging use of actually-effective measures because they make people less risk-averse is dangerous nonsense. Use the measures and then find some other way to affect behavior.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Westerners somehow have this weird preconception that those masks are protecting the wearer. No, they are protecting bystanders by reducing the reproduction factor of the disease. With exponential growth even means with low effectiveness can have a huge impact.
    - dpeck 7y ago
      We seem to have lost the ability to think in terms of collective benefit, if we ever had it.
  - tly_alex 7y ago
    Wearing masks and going places are two different thing. Wearing masks should be encouraged early and it could have saved many lives here in US. It's kind of surreal now to think about ppl in crowded cafeteria or pubs back in early Feb where the community spread started. It's a fact that wearing masks is slowing down the spread by as much as 80%. It's not exact immunity but it could have saved many ppl from getting the virus into their system
irrational 7y ago
> With comprehensive testing we could isolate the affected quickly and accurately That should be comprehensive with 100% coverage testing. Due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease, it was widespread before we knew it was here. There was no way to know who should be tested. We needed every single person tested on day 1, and then isolate the infected, to truly get in front of this thing. Anything else would be like trying to stop a hurricane by blowing a box fan against it.
dehrmann 7y ago
> the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices I wouldn't call CDC botching tests "obstruction," but it was probably the most significant failure at the federal level.

gdilla 7y ago

The lock downs were necessary to keep loads of stupid people ruining any self-responsibility-stay-home-when-sick-don't-have-parties reasonable, less restrictive tactic in place. If you maximize inconvenience, then even these people have a harder time breaking the rules. Still, ya, people violate, but it's much less.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

> the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices. What does that mean?

TehCorwiz 7y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/coronavirus-testing-cdc-fda-red-tape-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/coronavirus-testing-...
- ethbro 7y ago
  That a government administration that failed to appropriately staff and retain employees finds itself unable to enact emergency policy in a timely and complete manner? I am shocked!
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Standard operating procedure at the FDA is to prohibit everything until it has undergone comprehensive testing. Since this virus didn't exist until recently, neither did the test, so even once the test existed it was illegal to use it and the words swift and efficient are not appropriate to describe the process for changing that. People have been pointing out for years that the FDA's approach is excessively conservative, but the typical response is that they're doing it to save lives, even though there is a point past which being too conservative actually costs lives by keeping life-saving things off the market. This was a prominent example of that actually happening.

samatman 7y ago

The other truly painful move was to discourage the wearing of masks. The US Surgeon General, on March 28th, was on Twitter insisting that wearing masks was contraindicated unless you're coughing or sneezing, or taking care of someone with a confirmed infection. [0] He tagged the WHO and CDC, because he was following their advice. This wasn't deliberately calculated to kill tens of thousands of people and destroy the economy through harsh lockdowns when people started getting really sick. It just... happened to have that effect. [0]: https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1244020292365815809 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12440202923658158...

agildehaus 7y ago
Encouraging people to wear masks is extremely controversial. It encourages people to think they have some form of immunity walking about and going places where they otherwise wouldn't have without the false sense of security provided by a mask.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Discouraging use of actually-effective measures because they make people less risk-averse is dangerous nonsense. Use the measures and then find some other way to affect behavior.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Westerners somehow have this weird preconception that those masks are protecting the wearer. No, they are protecting bystanders by reducing the reproduction factor of the disease. With exponential growth even means with low effectiveness can have a huge impact.
  - dpeck 7y ago
    We seem to have lost the ability to think in terms of collective benefit, if we ever had it.
- tly_alex 7y ago
  Wearing masks and going places are two different thing. Wearing masks should be encouraged early and it could have saved many lives here in US. It's kind of surreal now to think about ppl in crowded cafeteria or pubs back in early Feb where the community spread started. It's a fact that wearing masks is slowing down the spread by as much as 80%. It's not exact immunity but it could have saved many ppl from getting the virus into their system

irrational 7y ago

> With comprehensive testing we could isolate the affected quickly and accurately That should be comprehensive with 100% coverage testing. Due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease, it was widespread before we knew it was here. There was no way to know who should be tested. We needed every single person tested on day 1, and then isolate the infected, to truly get in front of this thing. Anything else would be like trying to stop a hurricane by blowing a box fan against it.

dehrmann 7y ago

> the federal government obstructed any efforts at establishing widespread testing practices I wouldn't call CDC botching tests "obstruction," but it was probably the most significant failure at the federal level.