4 ms·

The problem with "pro-quarantine" arguments is that they miss that: a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths", because quarantine doesn't

The problem with "pro-quarantine" arguments is that they miss that: a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths", because quarantine doesn't stop the virus it only slows it down, in other-words quarantine will spread out those deaths in time, but many of those deaths are still going to happen (in due time) b) 20% GDP hit will inevitably directly and indirectly kill, make homeless and starve a lot of people c) in 2nd and 3rd world contries the distruption of the global economy to this degree will kill a metric ton of people d) it's impossible to keep quarantine for extended periods of time, because then it's going to be way more than 20% GDP hit. The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. To me it seems obvious that extended general quarantine is going to do an order of magnitude more damage (than doing the sane thing - like isolating at risk groups).

newacct583 6y ago
> a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths" They literally (literally literally!) already have. What do you think would have happened in late March if the lockdowns hadn't bent the curves? Why do you think the high exponent mode (doubling every 3-6 days) stopped, if you don't think the lockdowns did it? The problem with the "anti-quarantine" arguments is that they confuse the death rates of the status quo (locked-down semi-containment) with those that obtain from an unrestricted economy. That's not how it works. > The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. Find a serious person with numbers that support your case. I think you'll be surprised.
- FabHK 6y ago
  Yes. To highlight the response to a) - flattening the curve means that the peak is lower, but also that the area is smaller. The herd immunity level is always reached and overshot, but with a flatter curve the overshoot is smaller, and it can also be reached with vaccination. Thus, saving lives, even without full containment.
- Johanx64 6y ago
  Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented - they are still going to happen just spread across significantly larger timeframe, however, the extreme measures taken to slow down the spread have already and will kill, starve and impoverish way more people and do way more damage overall. If quarantine made the virus go away (which it doesn't) - or it bought enough time to make vaccines or effective treatments, then it would make sense, but it doesn't. All it does it make it seem like you are saving lives, while in effect the deaths are just spread across a longer timeframe and now you're killing, starving and impoverishing people from the severe and dire economic consequences.
  - padde 6y ago
    Take into account an overwhelmed health system and you will understand that the "spreading out over time" itself is in fact what is saving many lives.
    - Johanx64 6y ago
      If I recall correctly, from the people that get put on ventilators only half of them live. Secondly, why is nobody ever talking about the amount of deaths, starvation, homelessness and impoverishment that will result from economic damage of general quarantine. This always gets completely ignored and negated as if it doesn't exist. You can't say that quarantine saves lives unless you quantify how many people are killed and are going to be killed by it. My argument is that this by far will kill, starve and impoverish way more people than whatever number of people will get saved by having access to a ventilator.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented For... the TFA is literally about Germany, a nation that had its outbreak R0 drop below one (i.e. their outbreak was shrinking), far, far, far underneath the herd immunity threshold. It's simply not true that Germany didn't prevent any deaths, that analysis is straight wrong. The same holds for most of east asia. The only reason, quite frankly, that this doesn't seem to be happening in the US is because there is a segment of the population being led to believe that lockdowns are impossible, or that they don't work, or that they're an imposition on fundamental freedoms. So we're doing it badly. But it can absolutely be done well, as nations like Germany show.

newacct583 6y ago

> a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths" They literally (literally literally!) already have. What do you think would have happened in late March if the lockdowns hadn't bent the curves? Why do you think the high exponent mode (doubling every 3-6 days) stopped, if you don't think the lockdowns did it? The problem with the "anti-quarantine" arguments is that they confuse the death rates of the status quo (locked-down semi-containment) with those that obtain from an unrestricted economy. That's not how it works. > The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. Find a serious person with numbers that support your case. I think you'll be surprised.

FabHK 6y ago
Yes. To highlight the response to a) - flattening the curve means that the peak is lower, but also that the area is smaller. The herd immunity level is always reached and overshot, but with a flatter curve the overshoot is smaller, and it can also be reached with vaccination. Thus, saving lives, even without full containment.
Johanx64 6y ago
Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented - they are still going to happen just spread across significantly larger timeframe, however, the extreme measures taken to slow down the spread have already and will kill, starve and impoverish way more people and do way more damage overall. If quarantine made the virus go away (which it doesn't) - or it bought enough time to make vaccines or effective treatments, then it would make sense, but it doesn't. All it does it make it seem like you are saving lives, while in effect the deaths are just spread across a longer timeframe and now you're killing, starving and impoverishing people from the severe and dire economic consequences.
- padde 6y ago
  Take into account an overwhelmed health system and you will understand that the "spreading out over time" itself is in fact what is saving many lives.
  - Johanx64 6y ago
    If I recall correctly, from the people that get put on ventilators only half of them live. Secondly, why is nobody ever talking about the amount of deaths, starvation, homelessness and impoverishment that will result from economic damage of general quarantine. This always gets completely ignored and negated as if it doesn't exist. You can't say that quarantine saves lives unless you quantify how many people are killed and are going to be killed by it. My argument is that this by far will kill, starve and impoverish way more people than whatever number of people will get saved by having access to a ventilator.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented For... the TFA is literally about Germany, a nation that had its outbreak R0 drop below one (i.e. their outbreak was shrinking), far, far, far underneath the herd immunity threshold. It's simply not true that Germany didn't prevent any deaths, that analysis is straight wrong. The same holds for most of east asia. The only reason, quite frankly, that this doesn't seem to be happening in the US is because there is a segment of the population being led to believe that lockdowns are impossible, or that they don't work, or that they're an imposition on fundamental freedoms. So we're doing it badly. But it can absolutely be done well, as nations like Germany show.