5 ms·

Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented - they are still going to happen just spread across significantly larger timeframe

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.
- Johanx64 6y ago
  I frankly don't get where the misunderstanding is. If you take 1000 deaths and spread them across a 6months or a year instead of 2weeks, no lives have been "saved". Similarly the act of spreading it out via general extended quarantine, does massive economic damage that will result in deaths, starvation, homelessness and impoverishment that arguably will completely eclipse whatever lives are actually saved by the quarantine (due to say availability of ventilators and medical care not being overrun). Maybe that damage isn't as large in some developed countries like Germany who can maybe afford it, but it is in many other countries.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I frankly don't get where the misunderstanding is. If you take 1000 deaths and spread them across a 6months or a year instead of 2weeks, no lives have been "saved". That is not the effect of a lockdown. There is your misunderstanding. The proof is in the linked article (or data for Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Hawaii, all of whom also contained the virus before reaching herd immunity).
    - Johanx64 6y ago
      I suppose you are referring to having R0 below zero. Now then the question becomes what kind of measures are necessary to keep it there and if those measures are feasible long-term. If those measures are not feasible long term (this seems to be the case), that means they R0 can be held below zero only briefly. In other words, the spread of the virus is only slowed down (or even reversed briefly, with R0 < 0) and delayed, and in essence the most deaths are simply delayed and not saved. While the deaths from the quarantine measures itself doesn't seem to ever get accounted for. And that is the problem - those quarantine measure/economic damage deaths doesn't ever seem to be put into equation as if they don't exist or are negligible. Which makes me question if quarantine does net-benefit or does more harm in log term when all the externalities and knock on effects are actually accounted for. Or am I missing something?
      - 6y ago

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.

Johanx64 6y ago
I frankly don't get where the misunderstanding is. If you take 1000 deaths and spread them across a 6months or a year instead of 2weeks, no lives have been "saved". Similarly the act of spreading it out via general extended quarantine, does massive economic damage that will result in deaths, starvation, homelessness and impoverishment that arguably will completely eclipse whatever lives are actually saved by the quarantine (due to say availability of ventilators and medical care not being overrun). Maybe that damage isn't as large in some developed countries like Germany who can maybe afford it, but it is in many other countries.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I frankly don't get where the misunderstanding is. If you take 1000 deaths and spread them across a 6months or a year instead of 2weeks, no lives have been "saved". That is not the effect of a lockdown. There is your misunderstanding. The proof is in the linked article (or data for Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Hawaii, all of whom also contained the virus before reaching herd immunity).
  - Johanx64 6y ago
    I suppose you are referring to having R0 below zero. Now then the question becomes what kind of measures are necessary to keep it there and if those measures are feasible long-term. If those measures are not feasible long term (this seems to be the case), that means they R0 can be held below zero only briefly. In other words, the spread of the virus is only slowed down (or even reversed briefly, with R0 < 0) and delayed, and in essence the most deaths are simply delayed and not saved. While the deaths from the quarantine measures itself doesn't seem to ever get accounted for. And that is the problem - those quarantine measure/economic damage deaths doesn't ever seem to be put into equation as if they don't exist or are negligible. Which makes me question if quarantine does net-benefit or does more harm in log term when all the externalities and knock on effects are actually accounted for. Or am I missing something?
    - 6y ago