4 ms·

> Why shouldn't we remove the lockdown if we can manage to do so without overwhelming hospitals? That's a big if. The last stats I saw showed Sweden experienci

> Why shouldn't we remove the lockdown if we can manage to do so without overwhelming hospitals? That's a big if. The last stats I saw showed Sweden experiencing 4x deaths per capita compared to its neighbors, which is a clue that eschewing lockdown does make a difference. Every country is different. How do you know that Sweden's approach used in a different country wouldn't overwhelm hospitals? Once you let the pandemic get more widespread in a population, it gets hard to stop. Think very carefully about irreversible decisions.

augustt 6y ago
They have more deaths because they're paying up front. The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not. Considering that we're far off from a vaccine and world economy can't be left on life support for years, I'm inclined to believe them.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It may work out that way. But I don't think that was Sweden's intent. Just yesterday I read that the guy who devised their pandemic response was surprised by the deaths. (Sorry, I don't recall the source...)
- brlewis 6y ago
  > The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not The total number of infections will be the same up until a vaccine is developed, but the death rate can be lowered by delaying widespread infection until treatments are developed, tested, and deployed, and by keeping the infection rate at a level the medical system can handle.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Can that be a personal decision, for example: Person #1) I'm at risk and there are no good treatments, so I will self-isolate, waiting for vaccines, better treatment, and/or this to go away. Person #2) I'm young, my risk is negligable, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and I have to support my family, my kids need to go to school, etc. Why does person #1 get to tell person #2 what to do?
    - brlewis 6y ago
      Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick sooner. All precautions are multiplicative factors. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-time-peter-tippett-md-phd/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-t...
      - mikem170 6y ago
        >Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? You mentioned the probability of this, an increased risk for person #1 even if they are self isolating. I can grant that there is some risk associated with this But how does that compare to the impact that these lockdowns are having on tens of millions of people. What if there won't be a vaccine soon enough, and herd immunity amongst the young is our best defense, and lockdowns just prolonged the economic misery and didn't save lives in the end? Still a possible outcome at this point.
        brlewis 6y ago
        > How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? Person #1 can't be 100% isolated. Person #2 can breathe on produce at the grocery store that supplies Person #1. Person #2 can infect Person #3 with whom Person #1 can't completely avoid interaction. I can't answer the other questions. I just think we have to proceed with caution because ending the lockdown could cause irreversible spread of the virus.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > They have more deaths because they're paying up front. ISTM that with equal justification, you could argue that the lockdown countries have (possibly) more economic damage because they paid up front. But one side is paying in treasure, the other in blood. And it's not even clear that Sweden is reaping economic benefits. Some parts of their economy suffered just as much damage as other countries. And now, many of the lockdown countries are experimenting with loosened restrictions, while Sweden's infection and death rates remain stubbornly high.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    It could also be the case where lockdown countries are paying up front in economic damage AND will also pay later in deaths because there won't be a vaccine in time to stop this from spreading to everyone anyways.
disabled 6y ago
> The last stats I saw showed Sweden experiencing 4x deaths per capita compared to its neighbors, which is a clue that eschewing lockdown does make a difference. The reason why some countries have significantly higher death rates from coronavirus: it permeating nursing homes. The countries that put in strict controls overall and maximally protected people in nursing homes have the lowest death rates. Of course, the death rates worldwide are under-reported, and overall, worldwide, on average, the death rate is expected to be double of what is reported. To get an idea of what the true death rate from coronavirus, you would also need to compare previous death rates in previous years--at the same time of year. There is more work to do on that, because you would ideally have projections for if an epidemic never happened this year.
mikem170 6y ago
Correlation does not equal causation. I could spin the data to point out that Sweden has a fraction of the deaths as NYC and a higher antibody rate, proving that lockdowns don't work. I don't think data is the reason why people feel strongly one way or the other about this. Maybe risk assessment is the difference. We both look at the same data and come up with different conclusions. We might even both agree that this is most likely to peter-out from this point, but that it could get worse. We disagree on how to hedge/address both possible outcomes.
- brlewis 6y ago
  > I could spin the data to point out that Sweden has a fraction of the deaths as NYC and a higher antibody rate, proving that lockdowns don't work. Could you? My impression is you have too much integrity to do that. Ignoring the obvious difference between a largely rural Nordic country and one of the world's most densely populated trade centers might be hard for you. >We both look at the same data and come up with different conclusions I have yet to draw a conclusion. If you read my comment carefully, it's cautioning you against coming to a conclusion too soon.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Agreed. It would be prudent to ease out of lockdowns with the capability to return to them if hospitals are becoming overwhelmed. The county I live in is taking a phased approach to opening businesses based on the risk of exposure for workers and customers. They haven't started yet. I question some of their targets, but am glad that they have measurable targets.

augustt 6y ago

They have more deaths because they're paying up front. The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not. Considering that we're far off from a vaccine and world economy can't be left on life support for years, I'm inclined to believe them.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It may work out that way. But I don't think that was Sweden's intent. Just yesterday I read that the guy who devised their pandemic response was surprised by the deaths. (Sorry, I don't recall the source...)
brlewis 6y ago
> The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not The total number of infections will be the same up until a vaccine is developed, but the death rate can be lowered by delaying widespread infection until treatments are developed, tested, and deployed, and by keeping the infection rate at a level the medical system can handle.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Can that be a personal decision, for example: Person #1) I'm at risk and there are no good treatments, so I will self-isolate, waiting for vaccines, better treatment, and/or this to go away. Person #2) I'm young, my risk is negligable, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and I have to support my family, my kids need to go to school, etc. Why does person #1 get to tell person #2 what to do?
  - brlewis 6y ago
    Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick sooner. All precautions are multiplicative factors. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-time-peter-tippett-md-phd/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-t...
    - mikem170 6y ago
      >Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? You mentioned the probability of this, an increased risk for person #1 even if they are self isolating. I can grant that there is some risk associated with this But how does that compare to the impact that these lockdowns are having on tens of millions of people. What if there won't be a vaccine soon enough, and herd immunity amongst the young is our best defense, and lockdowns just prolonged the economic misery and didn't save lives in the end? Still a possible outcome at this point.
      - brlewis 6y ago
        > How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? Person #1 can't be 100% isolated. Person #2 can breathe on produce at the grocery store that supplies Person #1. Person #2 can infect Person #3 with whom Person #1 can't completely avoid interaction. I can't answer the other questions. I just think we have to proceed with caution because ending the lockdown could cause irreversible spread of the virus.
microtherion 6y ago
> They have more deaths because they're paying up front. ISTM that with equal justification, you could argue that the lockdown countries have (possibly) more economic damage because they paid up front. But one side is paying in treasure, the other in blood. And it's not even clear that Sweden is reaping economic benefits. Some parts of their economy suffered just as much damage as other countries. And now, many of the lockdown countries are experimenting with loosened restrictions, while Sweden's infection and death rates remain stubbornly high.
- mikem170 6y ago
  It could also be the case where lockdown countries are paying up front in economic damage AND will also pay later in deaths because there won't be a vaccine in time to stop this from spreading to everyone anyways.

disabled 6y ago

> The last stats I saw showed Sweden experiencing 4x deaths per capita compared to its neighbors, which is a clue that eschewing lockdown does make a difference. The reason why some countries have significantly higher death rates from coronavirus: it permeating nursing homes. The countries that put in strict controls overall and maximally protected people in nursing homes have the lowest death rates. Of course, the death rates worldwide are under-reported, and overall, worldwide, on average, the death rate is expected to be double of what is reported. To get an idea of what the true death rate from coronavirus, you would also need to compare previous death rates in previous years--at the same time of year. There is more work to do on that, because you would ideally have projections for if an epidemic never happened this year.

mikem170 6y ago

Correlation does not equal causation. I could spin the data to point out that Sweden has a fraction of the deaths as NYC and a higher antibody rate, proving that lockdowns don't work. I don't think data is the reason why people feel strongly one way or the other about this. Maybe risk assessment is the difference. We both look at the same data and come up with different conclusions. We might even both agree that this is most likely to peter-out from this point, but that it could get worse. We disagree on how to hedge/address both possible outcomes.

brlewis 6y ago
> I could spin the data to point out that Sweden has a fraction of the deaths as NYC and a higher antibody rate, proving that lockdowns don't work. Could you? My impression is you have too much integrity to do that. Ignoring the obvious difference between a largely rural Nordic country and one of the world's most densely populated trade centers might be hard for you. >We both look at the same data and come up with different conclusions I have yet to draw a conclusion. If you read my comment carefully, it's cautioning you against coming to a conclusion too soon.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Agreed. It would be prudent to ease out of lockdowns with the capability to return to them if hospitals are becoming overwhelmed. The county I live in is taking a phased approach to opening businesses based on the risk of exposure for workers and customers. They haven't started yet. I question some of their targets, but am glad that they have measurable targets.