6 ms·

Do Lockdowns Save Many Lives? In Most Places, the Data Say No

20 points by mrfusion 7y ago

Daishiman 7y ago
This honestly looks like a propaganda piece that directly contradicts a ton of evidence to the contrary.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > evidence to the contrary It depends on what you mean by lockdowns saving lives: when this first started, the catch-phrase was "flatten the curve". That means, we're all going to get it eventually, but we're going to try to spread out when we get it. If it's fatal to X% of the population when they get it, then it will be fatal whether they get it today or two months from now. Now, on the other hand, if we stay locked down until a vaccine is invented, or just stay locked down for the rest of our lives, then yes, of course, the lock down will save lives and will continue to save lives, at least until the lack of commerce leads to mass starvation. Which will happen before a vaccine can be developed.
- JPKab 7y ago
  I think calling something propaganda is a great way to silence discussion. It's arrogant to assume that the lockdowns are the only way to respond to this virus. I don't want to assume. I want to be informed by the data. That landscape is shifting, and I want our leaders to be willing to change their minds as new data comes in and we learn more. Maybe we carry on with lockdowns, maybe they were a good idea in cities, but never for suburbs. It's really hard to tell at this point. I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. We all work at keyboards, and get to stay employed. The cost/benefit analysis for coders as individuals is a hell of a lot different than it is for construction workers, restaurant workers, retail, etc. We should really try to be sensitive to that, instead of acting as if economic devastation doesn't cost lives, and is just a bit of pain to endure while we save lives from the virus. I grew up in an economically depressed area. Poverty, loss of livelihood and misery kill people too. Think about the fact that this is mainly being done to protect elderly people who have already earned the money they need for life, and is primarily costing young earners their livelihoods. The political system in the US already favors the elderly at the expense of the young. Do you think you're ever going to see Social Security checks equivalent to what you are paying in?
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    > I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. Then look at the data. There's an entire subreddit of all the latest papers and analysis regarding the disease and its spread, and the ineffectiveness of lockdowns has been debunked time and time again, especially now that we have models that have high approximations of the real-time spread of the disease. We have examples from Singapore, Germany, Brazil, and various US states about how easing lockdowns without concern for the necessary sanitary measures has a very measurable impact on new infections and deaths. In the beginning there were no clear exit scenarios. We have multiple governments that have expressed them now, with specific goals and measures that have to be considered to not reignite the spread of the disease. So yes, I consider this propaganda because the basic premise of the article is flawed and is the subject of journalists failing to navigate the current state of research, and its implied motivation of defending premature openings at the cost of an additional tens of thousands of lives.
bdavisx 7y ago
The author is a well known government hands-off libertarian, so keep the bias in mind.
- soared 7y ago
  Wikipedia: > Rodgers is known for his public relations acumen, brash personality, and strong advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism > Laizzes-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are absent of any form of government intervention such as regulation, privileges, imperialism, tariffs and subsidies
arcturus17 7y ago
Any idea how one could procure this wihtout the paywall?
- soared 7y ago
  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-in-most-places-data-say-no https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives... Excerpt: Do quick shutdowns work to fight the spread of Covid-19? Joe Malchow, Yinon Weiss and I wanted to find out. We set out to quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis. To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down. CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)
  - arcturus17 7y ago
    Isn't that just an excerpt? It links to WSJ at the end...
    - soared 7y ago
      You're right, thanks! - edited
- ranndino 7y ago
  Larger excerpt. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/april/29/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-in-most-places-the-data-say-no/ http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...
lowdose 7y ago
Maybe we should have a conversation about the age distribution of the deaths. Because no one in the media is willing to publish aggregated world data. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-region-in-italy/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deat... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-new-york-city/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat...
- armagon 7y ago
  I believe it is widely known that the disease disproportionately affects older people. Are you saying you wish we had worldwide stats for the demographic breakdown of the deaths? (If someone does that, could I also request a breakdown that shows the size of the demographic -- for example, in the charts the parent poster shared, I assume that there just aren't many 90+ year olds alive (as a percentage of the population), and so there aren't many deaths -- but a ratio would make it way easier to tell.)
  - abduhl 7y ago
    I think they're saying we should realize that a septuagenarian or an octogenarian is, economically speaking, a drain on society and we should be having a conversation about whether stopping the world economy to keep cost centers running makes sense.
    - 1propionyl 7y ago
      Yes, because the elderly among us are, like all human beings, merely vehicles of economic value. My parents wish I would call or write to my cost centers more, but I don't see the incentive to invest my valuable time for little to no ROI.
      - abduhl 7y ago
        You type all this with what I'm sure is meant to be a sarcastic tone but the reality is that all human beings are merely vehicles of economic value as far as the economy and government are concerned. Perhaps next time your parents and their friends told you that they wished you'd call or write more you could respond with something other than "OK Boomer."
soared 7y ago
> To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down. Can someone better at stats walk through this? Doing a simple test like this and then claiming lockdowns don't work does not seem genuine.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  The places that are slow to shut down are the places that are more dispersed and thus have a lower R0. Thus this is totally bogus.
xfitm3 7y ago
The saying is only 3 meals from anarchy. Pick your poison: economic collapse or avoid coronavirus. I'd take the virus, personally.
zzleeper 7y ago
Suppose perfect lockdowns, so no new infections after lockdown, not even family members. Suppose incubation is 1w, then 1w of worsening syntoms, and then death at 3w, consistent with Italy and other countries (sp. in places with enough beds, deaths seemed to have occurred later). Then, isn't the whole premise wrong? You want to study lockdowns but only look at deaths from infections BEFORE the lockdown? Am I missing something?

20 points by mrfusion 7y ago

Daishiman 7y ago

This honestly looks like a propaganda piece that directly contradicts a ton of evidence to the contrary.

commandlinefan 7y ago
> evidence to the contrary It depends on what you mean by lockdowns saving lives: when this first started, the catch-phrase was "flatten the curve". That means, we're all going to get it eventually, but we're going to try to spread out when we get it. If it's fatal to X% of the population when they get it, then it will be fatal whether they get it today or two months from now. Now, on the other hand, if we stay locked down until a vaccine is invented, or just stay locked down for the rest of our lives, then yes, of course, the lock down will save lives and will continue to save lives, at least until the lack of commerce leads to mass starvation. Which will happen before a vaccine can be developed.
JPKab 7y ago
I think calling something propaganda is a great way to silence discussion. It's arrogant to assume that the lockdowns are the only way to respond to this virus. I don't want to assume. I want to be informed by the data. That landscape is shifting, and I want our leaders to be willing to change their minds as new data comes in and we learn more. Maybe we carry on with lockdowns, maybe they were a good idea in cities, but never for suburbs. It's really hard to tell at this point. I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. We all work at keyboards, and get to stay employed. The cost/benefit analysis for coders as individuals is a hell of a lot different than it is for construction workers, restaurant workers, retail, etc. We should really try to be sensitive to that, instead of acting as if economic devastation doesn't cost lives, and is just a bit of pain to endure while we save lives from the virus. I grew up in an economically depressed area. Poverty, loss of livelihood and misery kill people too. Think about the fact that this is mainly being done to protect elderly people who have already earned the money they need for life, and is primarily costing young earners their livelihoods. The political system in the US already favors the elderly at the expense of the young. Do you think you're ever going to see Social Security checks equivalent to what you are paying in?
- Daishiman 7y ago
  > I was for the lockdowns, and I'm willing to stay that way, but I'm willing to hear more facts ,data, and analysis. Then look at the data. There's an entire subreddit of all the latest papers and analysis regarding the disease and its spread, and the ineffectiveness of lockdowns has been debunked time and time again, especially now that we have models that have high approximations of the real-time spread of the disease. We have examples from Singapore, Germany, Brazil, and various US states about how easing lockdowns without concern for the necessary sanitary measures has a very measurable impact on new infections and deaths. In the beginning there were no clear exit scenarios. We have multiple governments that have expressed them now, with specific goals and measures that have to be considered to not reignite the spread of the disease. So yes, I consider this propaganda because the basic premise of the article is flawed and is the subject of journalists failing to navigate the current state of research, and its implied motivation of defending premature openings at the cost of an additional tens of thousands of lives.

bdavisx 7y ago

The author is a well known government hands-off libertarian, so keep the bias in mind.

soared 7y ago
Wikipedia: > Rodgers is known for his public relations acumen, brash personality, and strong advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism > Laizzes-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are absent of any form of government intervention such as regulation, privileges, imperialism, tariffs and subsidies

arcturus17 7y ago

Any idea how one could procure this wihtout the paywall?

soared 7y ago
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-in-most-places-data-say-no https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives... Excerpt: Do quick shutdowns work to fight the spread of Covid-19? Joe Malchow, Yinon Weiss and I wanted to find out. We set out to quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis. To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down. CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)
- arcturus17 7y ago
  Isn't that just an excerpt? It links to WSJ at the end...
  - soared 7y ago
    You're right, thanks! - edited
ranndino 7y ago
Larger excerpt. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/april/29/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-in-most-places-the-data-say-no/ http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...

lowdose 7y ago

Maybe we should have a conversation about the age distribution of the deaths. Because no one in the media is willing to publish aggregated world data. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-region-in-italy/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deat... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-new-york-city/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat...

armagon 7y ago
I believe it is widely known that the disease disproportionately affects older people. Are you saying you wish we had worldwide stats for the demographic breakdown of the deaths? (If someone does that, could I also request a breakdown that shows the size of the demographic -- for example, in the charts the parent poster shared, I assume that there just aren't many 90+ year olds alive (as a percentage of the population), and so there aren't many deaths -- but a ratio would make it way easier to tell.)
- abduhl 7y ago
  I think they're saying we should realize that a septuagenarian or an octogenarian is, economically speaking, a drain on society and we should be having a conversation about whether stopping the world economy to keep cost centers running makes sense.
  - 1propionyl 7y ago
    Yes, because the elderly among us are, like all human beings, merely vehicles of economic value. My parents wish I would call or write to my cost centers more, but I don't see the incentive to invest my valuable time for little to no ROI.
    - abduhl 7y ago
      You type all this with what I'm sure is meant to be a sarcastic tone but the reality is that all human beings are merely vehicles of economic value as far as the economy and government are concerned. Perhaps next time your parents and their friends told you that they wished you'd call or write more you could respond with something other than "OK Boomer."

soared 7y ago

> To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down. Can someone better at stats walk through this? Doing a simple test like this and then claiming lockdowns don't work does not seem genuine.

LorenPechtel 7y ago
The places that are slow to shut down are the places that are more dispersed and thus have a lower R0. Thus this is totally bogus.

xfitm3 7y ago

The saying is only 3 meals from anarchy. Pick your poison: economic collapse or avoid coronavirus. I'd take the virus, personally.

zzleeper 7y ago

Suppose perfect lockdowns, so no new infections after lockdown, not even family members. Suppose incubation is 1w, then 1w of worsening syntoms, and then death at 3w, consistent with Italy and other countries (sp. in places with enough beds, deaths seemed to have occurred later). Then, isn't the whole premise wrong? You want to study lockdowns but only look at deaths from infections BEFORE the lockdown? Am I missing something?