4 ms·

I thought the purpose of SIP orders was to prevent overwhelming hospital ICUs. Covid case numbers are upstream of that but it's not 1-1.

holler 7y ago
That was/is the precise reason given, so it's hard to imagine this going on much longer given that hospitals are doing fine. I think another month is going to lead to chaos and many people rebelling.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Ah yes, the argument that protective measures are succeeding and therefore they are no longer necessary. Completely irrational in a scenario where the danger being protected against hadn't gone away.
  - holler 7y ago
    Where did I "argue" that protective measures are succeeding therefore X? I'm merely stating that you cannot have a society of 350M people completely stop what they're doing for 6 months and not have disastrous consequences. At some point we have to choose whether the lives we're potentially saving after lockdown month X vs the emergent problems from shut down are worth it.
    - scubbo 7y ago
      I think they were attributing that argument to the people you described "rebelling", not to you yourself.
      - holler 7y ago
        gotcha. I think it's disingenuous to effectively say that people are too stupid to make their own decisions regarding personal safety. There're growing calls to ease the lockdowns right now from people with top scientific credentials. I personally know doctors working in large hospitals who have said it's time to ease restrictions in most areas. It doesn't have to be all-or nothing. https://nypost.com/2020/04/26/science-says-its-time-to-start-easing-the-coronavirus-lockdowns/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/26/science-says-its-time-to-start...
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        If this were about personal safety, it'd be an entirely different scenario. The problem is that people's actions here are significantly affecting the safety of other people.
        rbritton 7y ago
        A virtually identical argument could be made for the same thing with the sides swapped. Some people's actions (i.e., those imposing lockdowns and other restrictions) are significantly affecting the safety (i.e., mental health, solvency, etc) of other people. It's a balancing scale, not just an independent bar you're trying to drop to zero.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        Sure. And that's why there is a complex list of things that are being banned or not, that varies by location, instead of simply telling everyone to go inside their house and not come out for three weeks. And significant legal changes, like unemployment eligibility, loan programs, etc. Exactly who are you thinking of, that is advocating to continue lockdowns because they aren't aware of all the tradeoffs involved?
        rbritton 7y ago
        I can't prove he's unaware, but I have yet to hear a single mention of any tradeoffs like these from Washington's governor. Every single rationale he has provided for his actions has solely been based on covid-19 infected and deaths numbers.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        So the WA governor (which is where I live) is the one who declared expanded unemployment access, defined and modified the list of essential businesses and is constantly talking about what is preventing us from opening up the economy - and yes, that's the deaths you mentioned. And you aren't sure if he knows about the disadvantages of everything being closed, because he hasn't included any details on why he wants to work towards reopening everything? I don't even know where to start. I think that the idea that is unaware of these factors is simply ludicrous.
  - standardUser 7y ago
    Instead of gallantly assaulting a straw man, you could acknowledge that lockdowns are not an on/off proposition and that there is almost certainly a better implementation of precautionary restrictions for achieving our goals than what we currently have.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Calling it a straw man implies that you don't think anyone is actually making this argument, and that's simply not true. If you feel compelled to defend your own position instead of the one I'm criticizing, go ahead, but I don't share your certainty of there being better possible implementations.

holler 7y ago

That was/is the precise reason given, so it's hard to imagine this going on much longer given that hospitals are doing fine. I think another month is going to lead to chaos and many people rebelling.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
Ah yes, the argument that protective measures are succeeding and therefore they are no longer necessary. Completely irrational in a scenario where the danger being protected against hadn't gone away.
- holler 7y ago
  Where did I "argue" that protective measures are succeeding therefore X? I'm merely stating that you cannot have a society of 350M people completely stop what they're doing for 6 months and not have disastrous consequences. At some point we have to choose whether the lives we're potentially saving after lockdown month X vs the emergent problems from shut down are worth it.
  - scubbo 7y ago
    I think they were attributing that argument to the people you described "rebelling", not to you yourself.
    - holler 7y ago
      gotcha. I think it's disingenuous to effectively say that people are too stupid to make their own decisions regarding personal safety. There're growing calls to ease the lockdowns right now from people with top scientific credentials. I personally know doctors working in large hospitals who have said it's time to ease restrictions in most areas. It doesn't have to be all-or nothing. https://nypost.com/2020/04/26/science-says-its-time-to-start-easing-the-coronavirus-lockdowns/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/26/science-says-its-time-to-start...
      - lazyasciiart 7y ago
        If this were about personal safety, it'd be an entirely different scenario. The problem is that people's actions here are significantly affecting the safety of other people.
        rbritton 7y ago
        A virtually identical argument could be made for the same thing with the sides swapped. Some people's actions (i.e., those imposing lockdowns and other restrictions) are significantly affecting the safety (i.e., mental health, solvency, etc) of other people. It's a balancing scale, not just an independent bar you're trying to drop to zero.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        Sure. And that's why there is a complex list of things that are being banned or not, that varies by location, instead of simply telling everyone to go inside their house and not come out for three weeks. And significant legal changes, like unemployment eligibility, loan programs, etc. Exactly who are you thinking of, that is advocating to continue lockdowns because they aren't aware of all the tradeoffs involved?
        rbritton 7y ago
        I can't prove he's unaware, but I have yet to hear a single mention of any tradeoffs like these from Washington's governor. Every single rationale he has provided for his actions has solely been based on covid-19 infected and deaths numbers.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        So the WA governor (which is where I live) is the one who declared expanded unemployment access, defined and modified the list of essential businesses and is constantly talking about what is preventing us from opening up the economy - and yes, that's the deaths you mentioned. And you aren't sure if he knows about the disadvantages of everything being closed, because he hasn't included any details on why he wants to work towards reopening everything? I don't even know where to start. I think that the idea that is unaware of these factors is simply ludicrous.
- standardUser 7y ago
  Instead of gallantly assaulting a straw man, you could acknowledge that lockdowns are not an on/off proposition and that there is almost certainly a better implementation of precautionary restrictions for achieving our goals than what we currently have.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Calling it a straw man implies that you don't think anyone is actually making this argument, and that's simply not true. If you feel compelled to defend your own position instead of the one I'm criticizing, go ahead, but I don't share your certainty of there being better possible implementations.