5 ms·

Yes, lockdown absolutely works. Yes, things are terrible in New York City. The question, maybe not debated among "academics" but debated among others, is whet

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
      > Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? It seems you are willfully misinterpreting me. As you will see above, I said: > The virus is a serious threat. It's good that we took the actions we did. Things were much less known then. Now we have better ground truth and are less likely to be blindsided. I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. I have been exercising caution and following the recommended guidelines. I will continue to. I would guess most people here will as well. We can't be in lockdown forever. The prudent thing to do, in my opinion, is to loosen restrictions slowly, being fully aware that we may have to tighten them again.
      - newacct583 7y ago
        > I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. Your state's decisions and policies are producing rapid outbreak growth, though. Why do you expect that growth to change if the policies don't? Going back to the link above, I see that Iowa's new infection rate (I'm looking at the 7-day average because per-day numbers are jumpy) has grown by a factor of 3.78 in the past 14 days. That's a daily growth rate of 10%, or a doubling period of a tiny bit over one week. At this rate, you will reach the same per capita rate that New York experienced at its absolute peak (April 9th) in just 13 days. So... what's going to change in two weeks? Your curve isn't bending, your policies aren't changing. What's going to save you? Here's what won't save you: locking down once things "get bad". Go back to the same site and see how long it takes from a lockdown until a state reaches peak. It's 10-20 days. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there really is some as-yet uncharacterized effect separate from lockdowns that steps in at the last minute just before states reach capacity to halt the outbreak. I just don't think Iowa should be betting on that, and I'm very scared about what we're going to see in the north central plains states in the comming month.

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
    > Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? It seems you are willfully misinterpreting me. As you will see above, I said: > The virus is a serious threat. It's good that we took the actions we did. Things were much less known then. Now we have better ground truth and are less likely to be blindsided. I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. I have been exercising caution and following the recommended guidelines. I will continue to. I would guess most people here will as well. We can't be in lockdown forever. The prudent thing to do, in my opinion, is to loosen restrictions slowly, being fully aware that we may have to tighten them again.
    - newacct583 7y ago
      > I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. Your state's decisions and policies are producing rapid outbreak growth, though. Why do you expect that growth to change if the policies don't? Going back to the link above, I see that Iowa's new infection rate (I'm looking at the 7-day average because per-day numbers are jumpy) has grown by a factor of 3.78 in the past 14 days. That's a daily growth rate of 10%, or a doubling period of a tiny bit over one week. At this rate, you will reach the same per capita rate that New York experienced at its absolute peak (April 9th) in just 13 days. So... what's going to change in two weeks? Your curve isn't bending, your policies aren't changing. What's going to save you? Here's what won't save you: locking down once things "get bad". Go back to the same site and see how long it takes from a lockdown until a state reaches peak. It's 10-20 days. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there really is some as-yet uncharacterized effect separate from lockdowns that steps in at the last minute just before states reach capacity to halt the outbreak. I just don't think Iowa should be betting on that, and I'm very scared about what we're going to see in the north central plains states in the comming month.