4 ms·

So... I agree with all that. It's not over. I just don't think enough attention is paid to just how outrageously bad things looked in late March. At the growt

So... I agree with all that. It's not over. I just don't think enough attention is paid to just how outrageously bad things looked in late March. At the growth rates we were seeing, we'd have blown right through health care capacity and we'd have been looking at hundreds of thousands of US deaths by the second week of April. And it didn't happen. The growth stopped cold, because the lockdowns worked. That's good news, and needs to be celebrated, so that we can continue the work. Instead, people on the left think "It's still serious!" and refuse to celebrate what we've achieved. And people on the right, not invited to the party, are being led to believe that the lockdowns somehow weren't the victory they actually were. And that's bad. We won the war. The battles aren't over, but we know we can beat this.

ineedasername 7y ago
I don't think you should make an analysis of our progress political. It does a disservice to "people on the right" if you think their opinions on the matter are somehow driven by left-leaning messaging. Such messaging has generally not, on other issues these past few years, done much to move right-leaning opinions. As such, if we're seeing people on the right are affirming opinions that you just "left", it should be much more thoughtfully considered as a legitimate, honest opinion, not one driven primarily by left/right messaging.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I agree that political generalizations often do a disservice to people on both sides, who often have their views caricaturized. When you say don't "make... political" do you agree that the cultural trends exist and are worthy of discussion in a conversation about handling the disease?
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    I think those are relevant topics of conversation. However, in the context of this discussion thread and the claim of "we won" over the virus, there wasn't previously a "left/right" framing of the issue. Adding it only after we were a few layers deep into the thread was unnecessary to the discussion of whether or not we had achieved victory over the virus. It's problematic because it also didn't seem an accurate characterization of of opinion trends, which shouldn't have mattered one way or another in the conversation. But my opinion that it wasn't an accurate characterization should not have been an issue in this thread at all: The introduction of politics derailed the discussion from one about progress against the virus to political rather than factual motivation for our opinions. Had the thread started out differently I wouldn't see that as much of a problem, though I think the introduction of political ideology into conversation on HN is often counter productive in general.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      Thank you for clarifying, and so thoroughly as well. I suspected that this was the case. I was just curious because the line I referenced could have a range of interpretations. Thanks.
war1025 7y ago
> just how outrageously bad things looked in late March. I agree things looked terrible then. I think a big part of the conversation now is "how much was lockdown, and how much was bad projections?" Given what we knew at the time, it was the right choice. Now we need to decide how to move forward.
- newacct583 7y ago
  > I think a big part of the conversation now is "how much was lockdown, and how much was bad projections?" With all due respect: That's not a conversation among any serious academics. It's a conversation happening among political actors in political contexts (c.f. Tucker Carlson floating this two nights ago). It's just not correct. And as you phrase it, it doesn't even make sense. "Projections" don't cause a change in R0. If you want to argue that this happened for some other reason than lockdowns you need to have a reason. And there are none that make sense. (I mean, maybe it's herd immunity. In that case, why did the infection curves in different US states at very different death counts all bend the same way at roughly the same time after lockdown? Maybe it's weather: likewise, also the fact that the early China outbreak with similar behavior happened in the middle of winter. Maybe it's a mutant strain: nope, no particular evidence for specific ones having different behavior.) If you want to have a conversation, you need to come to the table with a working theory. Social isolation has been known for centuries to work exactly the way it has here. It's a very attractive hypothesis, and is going to be difficult to disprove.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Yes, lockdown absolutely works. Yes, things are terrible in New York City. The question, maybe not debated among "academics" but debated among others, is whether spread rates ever would have gotten as bad in suburban and rural areas as they did in densely populated cities. Models that used the same variables for NYC with population density of 30k people / sq mile as for rural states with tens or hundreds of people per square mile are just not realistic. The virus is a serious threat. It's good that we took the actions we did. That is in the past. The question now is how we move forward. Part of that is gaining a better understanding of how bad the conditions on the ground actually are. All indications are that we can relax restrictions to some extent and still not overwhelm the hospital system. Indications also point that our current restrictions are absolutely catastrophic for the economy. So we have to find the balance.

ineedasername 7y ago

I don't think you should make an analysis of our progress political. It does a disservice to "people on the right" if you think their opinions on the matter are somehow driven by left-leaning messaging. Such messaging has generally not, on other issues these past few years, done much to move right-leaning opinions. As such, if we're seeing people on the right are affirming opinions that you just "left", it should be much more thoughtfully considered as a legitimate, honest opinion, not one driven primarily by left/right messaging.

jshevek 7y ago
I agree that political generalizations often do a disservice to people on both sides, who often have their views caricaturized. When you say don't "make... political" do you agree that the cultural trends exist and are worthy of discussion in a conversation about handling the disease?
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I think those are relevant topics of conversation. However, in the context of this discussion thread and the claim of "we won" over the virus, there wasn't previously a "left/right" framing of the issue. Adding it only after we were a few layers deep into the thread was unnecessary to the discussion of whether or not we had achieved victory over the virus. It's problematic because it also didn't seem an accurate characterization of of opinion trends, which shouldn't have mattered one way or another in the conversation. But my opinion that it wasn't an accurate characterization should not have been an issue in this thread at all: The introduction of politics derailed the discussion from one about progress against the virus to political rather than factual motivation for our opinions. Had the thread started out differently I wouldn't see that as much of a problem, though I think the introduction of political ideology into conversation on HN is often counter productive in general.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    Thank you for clarifying, and so thoroughly as well. I suspected that this was the case. I was just curious because the line I referenced could have a range of interpretations. Thanks.

war1025 7y ago

> just how outrageously bad things looked in late March. I agree things looked terrible then. I think a big part of the conversation now is "how much was lockdown, and how much was bad projections?" Given what we knew at the time, it was the right choice. Now we need to decide how to move forward.

newacct583 7y ago
> I think a big part of the conversation now is "how much was lockdown, and how much was bad projections?" With all due respect: That's not a conversation among any serious academics. It's a conversation happening among political actors in political contexts (c.f. Tucker Carlson floating this two nights ago). It's just not correct. And as you phrase it, it doesn't even make sense. "Projections" don't cause a change in R0. If you want to argue that this happened for some other reason than lockdowns you need to have a reason. And there are none that make sense. (I mean, maybe it's herd immunity. In that case, why did the infection curves in different US states at very different death counts all bend the same way at roughly the same time after lockdown? Maybe it's weather: likewise, also the fact that the early China outbreak with similar behavior happened in the middle of winter. Maybe it's a mutant strain: nope, no particular evidence for specific ones having different behavior.) If you want to have a conversation, you need to come to the table with a working theory. Social isolation has been known for centuries to work exactly the way it has here. It's a very attractive hypothesis, and is going to be difficult to disprove.
- war1025 7y ago
  Yes, lockdown absolutely works. Yes, things are terrible in New York City. The question, maybe not debated among "academics" but debated among others, is whether spread rates ever would have gotten as bad in suburban and rural areas as they did in densely populated cities. Models that used the same variables for NYC with population density of 30k people / sq mile as for rural states with tens or hundreds of people per square mile are just not realistic. The virus is a serious threat. It's good that we took the actions we did. That is in the past. The question now is how we move forward. Part of that is gaining a better understanding of how bad the conditions on the ground actually are. All indications are that we can relax restrictions to some extent and still not overwhelm the hospital system. Indications also point that our current restrictions are absolutely catastrophic for the economy. So we have to find the balance.