4 ms·

Note that this classic "pro-lockdown" talking point is an unfalsifiable claim. I don't think there's any figure I could pull out that might sway you otherwise,

Note that this classic "pro-lockdown" talking point is an unfalsifiable claim. I don't think there's any figure I could pull out that might sway you otherwise, right? Simply put, this argument is invalid. Why? Because my writeup went into the IFR. Therefore we can calculate how many deaths might occur in the "do nothing" scenario, and compare that to lockdown-induced deaths. Also we should note that social distancing and lockdown are different things, and it _appears_ that the former is much more responsible for the slowed rate of transmission. My proposal does not involve getting rid of social distancing, although it does encourage it to be voluntary as opposed to compelled.

grumple 6y ago
As I replied elsewhere to a similar point about falsifiability: > Note that this classic "pro-lockdown" talking point is an unfalsifiable claim. If you want to get down to epistemological arguments, then we should be clear: we can't know ANYTHING about the real world for certain and all no claim about the natural world is falsifiable; the only claims we can make are those that are tautological or conceptual only. The scientific method itself does not stand on anything more than sand from an epistemological perspective. Obviously, that's a ridiculous way to think about the world and not helpful. What we CAN do is see the changes in trajectory of the virus growth rate caused by the lockdown; and extrapolate based on the data that we've seen about how it would grow without the lockdown. This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part). > Also we should note that social distancing and lockdown are different things, and it _appears_ that the former is much more responsible for the slowed rate of transmission. For someone talking about the falsifiability of claims, you should take note that this is a unfalsifiable claim, and one that's intuitively ridiculous (as the lockdown causes more social distancing than would happen otherwise). Obviously, we can't lock the entire civilization down forever, and nobody has made such an argument - there will be a gradual easing of restrictions over the coming months, but there's an expectation that we might see another wave of virus transmission in the fall.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  I'm going to hold up on responding to the points about unfalsifiability for now and focus on addressing this part: > Obviously, we can't lock the entire civilization down forever, and nobody has made such an argument - there will be a gradual easing of restrictions over the coming months, but there's an expectation that we might see another wave of virus transmission in the fall. So, the fear of the "second wave", in my opinion, is precisely because of practicing Containment as opposed to practicing pareto mitigation and letting the virus run its course in non-at-risk individuals. Or more accurately, since we're talking about still quaranting ~40% of the US, we would still see a small wave but it would not be nearly as significant. In other words, the potential for the wave exists because having "protected" everybody from infection, there is now a huge differential pressure for SARS-CoV-2 to exploit. i.e. there are still plenty of vectors and thus the second wave is absolutely a concern. Given how low prevalence in places like California is, I absolutely think we will see that wave. But again I essentially view it as a sign that we handled the situation wrong. Given our current Containment policies, the resurgence of the wave might be met by a new wave of lockdowns. I certainly hope not, but that seems very likely. Hopefully by that point though people have mostly went back to work and thus it _might_ be politically untenable. -- I guess I'll address the unfalsifiable point really briefly (I won't do it justice) - I think the claim that social distancing did/does more than lockdown is definitely falsifiable. Maybe not perfectly so, but we can see movement data and try to correlate that with waves of infection via projecting deaths backwards in time. It's certainly fuzzy given we'd be using average time until death as a proxy, but the claim is much _more_ investigable than the infamous "lockdown worked, end of story" line.

grumple 6y ago

As I replied elsewhere to a similar point about falsifiability: > Note that this classic "pro-lockdown" talking point is an unfalsifiable claim. If you want to get down to epistemological arguments, then we should be clear: we can't know ANYTHING about the real world for certain and all no claim about the natural world is falsifiable; the only claims we can make are those that are tautological or conceptual only. The scientific method itself does not stand on anything more than sand from an epistemological perspective. Obviously, that's a ridiculous way to think about the world and not helpful. What we CAN do is see the changes in trajectory of the virus growth rate caused by the lockdown; and extrapolate based on the data that we've seen about how it would grow without the lockdown. This is what a large number of domain experts (including data scientists with domain knowledge) have been doing, and they believe the lockdown has been necessary (and will continue to be, at least in part). > Also we should note that social distancing and lockdown are different things, and it _appears_ that the former is much more responsible for the slowed rate of transmission. For someone talking about the falsifiability of claims, you should take note that this is a unfalsifiable claim, and one that's intuitively ridiculous (as the lockdown causes more social distancing than would happen otherwise). Obviously, we can't lock the entire civilization down forever, and nobody has made such an argument - there will be a gradual easing of restrictions over the coming months, but there's an expectation that we might see another wave of virus transmission in the fall.

ryankemper 6y ago
I'm going to hold up on responding to the points about unfalsifiability for now and focus on addressing this part: > Obviously, we can't lock the entire civilization down forever, and nobody has made such an argument - there will be a gradual easing of restrictions over the coming months, but there's an expectation that we might see another wave of virus transmission in the fall. So, the fear of the "second wave", in my opinion, is precisely because of practicing Containment as opposed to practicing pareto mitigation and letting the virus run its course in non-at-risk individuals. Or more accurately, since we're talking about still quaranting ~40% of the US, we would still see a small wave but it would not be nearly as significant. In other words, the potential for the wave exists because having "protected" everybody from infection, there is now a huge differential pressure for SARS-CoV-2 to exploit. i.e. there are still plenty of vectors and thus the second wave is absolutely a concern. Given how low prevalence in places like California is, I absolutely think we will see that wave. But again I essentially view it as a sign that we handled the situation wrong. Given our current Containment policies, the resurgence of the wave might be met by a new wave of lockdowns. I certainly hope not, but that seems very likely. Hopefully by that point though people have mostly went back to work and thus it _might_ be politically untenable. -- I guess I'll address the unfalsifiable point really briefly (I won't do it justice) - I think the claim that social distancing did/does more than lockdown is definitely falsifiable. Maybe not perfectly so, but we can see movement data and try to correlate that with waves of infection via projecting deaths backwards in time. It's certainly fuzzy given we'd be using average time until death as a proxy, but the claim is much _more_ investigable than the infamous "lockdown worked, end of story" line.