3 ms·

” There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long

by irq11 6y ago

” There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long hair for a while.” Citation absolutely required. We’re talking about people’s lives here, and there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention. Everyone says they’re “listening to the science” to make these kinds of decisions, but where is it? Why can’t we be letting people get haircuts while wearing masks? Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis. Don’t just downvote: provide affirmative evidence.

the_watcher 6y ago
> there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention. Citation absolutely required. While there is definitely a ton of uncertainty around what causes spread, the one thing that there seems to be broad agreement on is that sustained time in a shared pocket of air with an infected person is the most likely transmission vector.
- irq11 6y ago
  No, that’s not the way it works. If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around. Hypotheses don’t count. Provide actual scientific proof. You’re ruining people’s lives.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    The virus is tanking the economy, not the lockdown. Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places. You can lift the lockdown if you want, but if people are too afraid to board planes and go to restaurants and bars, you are not going to magically bounce back to 4% unemployment and 2% GDP growth overnight. > If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around. Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people, then the onus is on you to prove that your actions won't cost hundreds of thousands of lives. You can't claim that enacting a lockdown requires scientific proof but lifting one does not, when the potential consequences for the latter are even higher than the former.
    - icelancer 6y ago
      >> Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places Sure there is. It's called mass unemployment and closure of non-essential businesses. Why would people fly to branch offices if they're closed? >> Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people You don't know this to be true. There is plenty of evidence showing lockdowns have limited impact, no impact, or even worse, exacerbate the problem. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdowns-wont-stop-the-spread-11586474560 https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdowns-wont-stop-the-spread-...
      - creato 6y ago
        > Sure there is. It's called mass unemployment and closure of non-essential businesses. Why would people fly to branch offices if they're closed? Sweden didn't "lock down" (as people often point out), but travel is down 90% from normal [1]: > "The biggest myth and misconception is that life goes on as normal in Sweden," she said. "It absolutely does not." > "We have seen Easter travel decrease by 90 percent, we have businesses going bankrupt, a record number of temporary layoffs, and a lot of unemployed people." I agree that lockdowns seem to have limited or no impact, but not for the reason you think. Where I am, restaurants and retail shops were already in dire straits before the lockdowns came into force. I think the lock downs have limited impact because they aren't very different from the way most people would be behaving anyways, given the information they have. 1. https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-coronavirus-the-biggest-myth-about-sweden-is-that-life-is-going-on-as-normal https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-co...
dpau 6y ago
> Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis. I live in a state with a very low number of cases and deaths, much less than SF. We began the process of reopening today. Which would be fine if our borders were sealed, if quarantine for travelers was enforced, if our systems for contact tracing and testing were adequate. However, none of these requirements have been met. It is only a matter of time before this state, which relies heavily on tourism, sees a rebound of cases and we are once back in the situation we were in a month ago.

by irq11 6y ago

the_watcher 6y ago

> there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention. Citation absolutely required. While there is definitely a ton of uncertainty around what causes spread, the one thing that there seems to be broad agreement on is that sustained time in a shared pocket of air with an infected person is the most likely transmission vector.

irq11 6y ago
No, that’s not the way it works. If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around. Hypotheses don’t count. Provide actual scientific proof. You’re ruining people’s lives.
- esoterica 6y ago
  The virus is tanking the economy, not the lockdown. Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places. You can lift the lockdown if you want, but if people are too afraid to board planes and go to restaurants and bars, you are not going to magically bounce back to 4% unemployment and 2% GDP growth overnight. > If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around. Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people, then the onus is on you to prove that your actions won't cost hundreds of thousands of lives. You can't claim that enacting a lockdown requires scientific proof but lifting one does not, when the potential consequences for the latter are even higher than the former.
  - icelancer 6y ago
    >> Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places Sure there is. It's called mass unemployment and closure of non-essential businesses. Why would people fly to branch offices if they're closed? >> Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people You don't know this to be true. There is plenty of evidence showing lockdowns have limited impact, no impact, or even worse, exacerbate the problem. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdowns-wont-stop-the-spread-11586474560 https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdowns-wont-stop-the-spread-...
    - creato 6y ago
      > Sure there is. It's called mass unemployment and closure of non-essential businesses. Why would people fly to branch offices if they're closed? Sweden didn't "lock down" (as people often point out), but travel is down 90% from normal [1]: > "The biggest myth and misconception is that life goes on as normal in Sweden," she said. "It absolutely does not." > "We have seen Easter travel decrease by 90 percent, we have businesses going bankrupt, a record number of temporary layoffs, and a lot of unemployed people." I agree that lockdowns seem to have limited or no impact, but not for the reason you think. Where I am, restaurants and retail shops were already in dire straits before the lockdowns came into force. I think the lock downs have limited impact because they aren't very different from the way most people would be behaving anyways, given the information they have. 1. https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-coronavirus-the-biggest-myth-about-sweden-is-that-life-is-going-on-as-normal https://www.thelocal.se/20200424/interview-isabella-lovin-co...

dpau 6y ago

> Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis. I live in a state with a very low number of cases and deaths, much less than SF. We began the process of reopening today. Which would be fine if our borders were sealed, if quarantine for travelers was enforced, if our systems for contact tracing and testing were adequate. However, none of these requirements have been met. It is only a matter of time before this state, which relies heavily on tourism, sees a rebound of cases and we are once back in the situation we were in a month ago.