5 ms·

That’s a little extreme- if someone doesn’t want to be tracked they must stay at home and shamed? There are other alternatives.

jariel 6y ago
So what are the alternatives exactly? Because we have the whole world on lockdown waiting for someone to tell us. Unfortunately, without a vaccine or cure - there are only 2 approaches that work: 1) Eradication - like Taiwan. They have a tiny number of cases in full quarantine. Nobody comes on or off the island without being checked. So they are in total isolation. But we can't do this. 2) Contact tracing - like Korea. They keep the virus under wraps by aggressively isolating cases, using social policy centered around contact tracing. Of course, they have masks, widespread testing, but a very asserted focus on contact management. FYI we have to get it down to low-levels before this policy can be implemented. But it works. Regular 'social distancing' does not do enough. Right now - we are coming out of our 'lockdowns' but the virus will likely just bounce back - why would it not? Other than the fact weather does play a role and it's getting warmer, there's no reason for the COVID growth to come back to where it was. So either you stay away from other people - or - at least you consent to inform them if somehow you were near them, which requires contact tracing obviously with the addition of good operational capabilities there, it's not 'just an app'.
- throwaway122378 6y ago
  The longer the country is shut down the more lives we’ll lose to poverty related deaths. Total covid deaths are still below last seasons Flu death total and that’s Counting all the probable covid deaths that are included in this years count. That was with the population operating under pre covid lifestyle. We can get back now and take caution. Shelter those above 65 and anyone with an underlying condition. (Of course anyone should stay home if they feel the need) Everyone else back to life with social distancing and preventative measures in place (masks, no concerts etc) Build immunity and slowly bring the rest of society back. Sources: Go research. Look at the data we are way over doing it. Anything I post will be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
  - ToFundorNot 6y ago
    I did. We're two days away from matching the top end estimates for 2019 flu deaths[1] And that's with an estimated ~1/30th of the infections. Based off the most liberal estimates of deaths directly related to the financial crisis, we're many multiples higher (est: 10,000+)[2] and a couple of day from being par with both direct, and indirect deaths related to stress and financial strife (assuming all the cancer patience died, which they did not) [3]. We're moving towards what you're suggesting, now that most countries have a serious testing infrastructure in place. Randomized testing, plus regular testing of the medial professionals tied with social distancing is what our near future hold. Most things open up to a limited extent, and we'll move from there. [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-excess-cancer-deaths-atun/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...
    - dannyw 6y ago
      Actually, not exactly. The antibody tests, everywhere from NYC to California to Germany to Italy, is showing that unreported infections may be 80x as high as reported infections. In fact, entire homeless shelters have been tested with about a third being infected, and zero showing symptoms. What this means is that COVID19 is significantly less dangerous than we originally thought. 1 in 5 NYCers have antibodies; and this was sampled a week ago. Given how fast COVID spreads, it could be 1 in 4 now. This means that if we flatten the curve enough, we could possibly see ~3x the deaths (to reach a 80% infected rate) and reach herd immunity. Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no. We absolutely cannot be in lockdown till a vaccine is found, we cannot stay at home for 18 months or we will witness decades of economic devastation for 7.5 billion people on the planet (given how connected the world is); not to mention all the mental health harm; as well as physical health harm (deferral of non-essential but still highly important surgeries like hip replacements; less preventative check ups from people going to doctors; etc). There are trade-offs to be made: we have cars despite the fact that they kill. We allow cigarettes despite the fact that they kill. We allow alcohol despite the fact that they kill. For anyone who this message resonates to, please join us on /r/LockdownSkepticism. We're about using logic and data discuss what the best course of action is for society as a whole.

jariel 6y ago

So what are the alternatives exactly? Because we have the whole world on lockdown waiting for someone to tell us. Unfortunately, without a vaccine or cure - there are only 2 approaches that work: 1) Eradication - like Taiwan. They have a tiny number of cases in full quarantine. Nobody comes on or off the island without being checked. So they are in total isolation. But we can't do this. 2) Contact tracing - like Korea. They keep the virus under wraps by aggressively isolating cases, using social policy centered around contact tracing. Of course, they have masks, widespread testing, but a very asserted focus on contact management. FYI we have to get it down to low-levels before this policy can be implemented. But it works. Regular 'social distancing' does not do enough. Right now - we are coming out of our 'lockdowns' but the virus will likely just bounce back - why would it not? Other than the fact weather does play a role and it's getting warmer, there's no reason for the COVID growth to come back to where it was. So either you stay away from other people - or - at least you consent to inform them if somehow you were near them, which requires contact tracing obviously with the addition of good operational capabilities there, it's not 'just an app'.

throwaway122378 6y ago
The longer the country is shut down the more lives we’ll lose to poverty related deaths. Total covid deaths are still below last seasons Flu death total and that’s Counting all the probable covid deaths that are included in this years count. That was with the population operating under pre covid lifestyle. We can get back now and take caution. Shelter those above 65 and anyone with an underlying condition. (Of course anyone should stay home if they feel the need) Everyone else back to life with social distancing and preventative measures in place (masks, no concerts etc) Build immunity and slowly bring the rest of society back. Sources: Go research. Look at the data we are way over doing it. Anything I post will be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
- ToFundorNot 6y ago
  I did. We're two days away from matching the top end estimates for 2019 flu deaths[1] And that's with an estimated ~1/30th of the infections. Based off the most liberal estimates of deaths directly related to the financial crisis, we're many multiples higher (est: 10,000+)[2] and a couple of day from being par with both direct, and indirect deaths related to stress and financial strife (assuming all the cancer patience died, which they did not) [3]. We're moving towards what you're suggesting, now that most countries have a serious testing infrastructure in place. Randomized testing, plus regular testing of the medial professionals tied with social distancing is what our near future hold. Most things open up to a limited extent, and we'll move from there. [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-excess-cancer-deaths-atun/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...
  - dannyw 6y ago
    Actually, not exactly. The antibody tests, everywhere from NYC to California to Germany to Italy, is showing that unreported infections may be 80x as high as reported infections. In fact, entire homeless shelters have been tested with about a third being infected, and zero showing symptoms. What this means is that COVID19 is significantly less dangerous than we originally thought. 1 in 5 NYCers have antibodies; and this was sampled a week ago. Given how fast COVID spreads, it could be 1 in 4 now. This means that if we flatten the curve enough, we could possibly see ~3x the deaths (to reach a 80% infected rate) and reach herd immunity. Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no. We absolutely cannot be in lockdown till a vaccine is found, we cannot stay at home for 18 months or we will witness decades of economic devastation for 7.5 billion people on the planet (given how connected the world is); not to mention all the mental health harm; as well as physical health harm (deferral of non-essential but still highly important surgeries like hip replacements; less preventative check ups from people going to doctors; etc). There are trade-offs to be made: we have cars despite the fact that they kill. We allow cigarettes despite the fact that they kill. We allow alcohol despite the fact that they kill. For anyone who this message resonates to, please join us on /r/LockdownSkepticism. We're about using logic and data discuss what the best course of action is for society as a whole.