12 ms·

> 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 amon

> 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.
- newacct583 7y ago
  FWIW: the fastest growing US states right now are Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas (though Illinois is also up there, and no doubt dominated by the Chicago metro area). The idea that rural areas don't see rapid growth isn't really well-founded. What happened was that large international cities experienced their outbreaks earlier. Nebraska may be small still, but at their current growth rate they'll match New York's all time high new infection rate (per capita) in just two weeks. Go browse the charts at https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ and note how similar all these curves look. No one is special. Everyone grows rapidly without lockdown. Everyone levels off with it. Only a few states have actually seen a peak and a significant reduction in new infections (c.f. Vermont, Montana, Hawaii). Those are the ones that might consider opening up right now. Everyone else just isn't safe yet.
  - war1025 7y ago
    I am in Iowa. I am aware of our situation here. It is highly localized to several meat processing plants. Bigger cities are seeing larger numbers. I live less than an hour away from the capital, Des Moines. We have ~30 confirmed cases total in my county. My mom lives near the northern border. They have 2 confirmed cases total. We never went to strict "shelter in place". Today the majority of the state is relaxing restrictions and restaurants can allow limited dine-in options if they wish. Maybe it will go terrible. Maybe it won't. We will see.
    - newacct583 7y ago
      > Maybe it will go terrible. Maybe it won't. We will see. Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? I mean, you're citing current absolute statistics at a time when your infection count is growing rapidly. Your per capita new infection rate now is the same as New York's was on March 22. You understand that's not the right way to think about an epidemic, right? If you aren't flat then you're in the process of growing exponentially, and that doesn't just fix itself.
      - war1025 7y ago

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.

newacct583 7y ago
FWIW: the fastest growing US states right now are Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas (though Illinois is also up there, and no doubt dominated by the Chicago metro area). The idea that rural areas don't see rapid growth isn't really well-founded. What happened was that large international cities experienced their outbreaks earlier. Nebraska may be small still, but at their current growth rate they'll match New York's all time high new infection rate (per capita) in just two weeks. Go browse the charts at https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ and note how similar all these curves look. No one is special. Everyone grows rapidly without lockdown. Everyone levels off with it. Only a few states have actually seen a peak and a significant reduction in new infections (c.f. Vermont, Montana, Hawaii). Those are the ones that might consider opening up right now. Everyone else just isn't safe yet.
- war1025 7y ago
  I am in Iowa. I am aware of our situation here. It is highly localized to several meat processing plants. Bigger cities are seeing larger numbers. I live less than an hour away from the capital, Des Moines. We have ~30 confirmed cases total in my county. My mom lives near the northern border. They have 2 confirmed cases total. We never went to strict "shelter in place". Today the majority of the state is relaxing restrictions and restaurants can allow limited dine-in options if they wish. Maybe it will go terrible. Maybe it won't. We will see.
  - newacct583 7y ago
    > Maybe it will go terrible. Maybe it won't. We will see. Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? I mean, you're citing current absolute statistics at a time when your infection count is growing rapidly. Your per capita new infection rate now is the same as New York's was on March 22. You understand that's not the right way to think about an epidemic, right? If you aren't flat then you're in the process of growing exponentially, and that doesn't just fix itself.
    - war1025 7y ago