3 ms·

i think this is why people who say "let people just take thier chances" dont really understand what they are in for... its more than just death-rate vs survival

i think this is why people who say "let people just take thier chances" dont really understand what they are in for... its more than just death-rate vs survival-rate...

jswizzy 6y ago
you could say the same thing about people who want to shut everything down.
- newacct583 6y ago
  You could, except that group is a strawman that doesn't exist. No one "wants to shut everything down". Everyone wants to go back to normal, the question is how quickly. Most of the people you're arguing about think that lockdowns along the lines of what were seen in east asia would have been ideal. Taiwan and South Korea seem to have this contained now. Germany is very close. These countries are getting back to normal with very low death tolls as we speak. They certainly didn't "shut everything down". The US is way behind, largely because its lockdowns haven't been well-heeded by people who think they constitute "shutting everything down". But we're not that far behind that the lockdowns have failed, either. Stay home. We're beating this.
  - kristianc 6y ago
    > Taiwan and South Korea seem to have this contained now. Germany is very close. These countries are getting back to normal with very low death tolls as we speak. They certainly didn't "shut everything down". The death rates in these countries also peaked about two weeks into lockdown, way too soon for lockdown to have had any impact. The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. The countries that have done well implemented test and trace early, and got people who had tested positive with COVID well out the way of anyone else in hospital wards.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. I don't know what you mean, except that they go up exponentially and then they go down exponentially and so that's a "bell" curve[1]. The important metric isn't the shape of the thing, it's the size. And the sizes of these curves very widely between nations, tracking lockdown agility and adherence surprisingly well. [1] That observation is, frankly, pretty trivial. Outbreaks grow with some probability from every individual case, so the derivative is proportional to the value of the function, always. They must have an exponential shape on both sides. That's just math.
    - Majromax 6y ago
      > The death rates in these countries also peaked about two weeks into lockdown, way too soon for lockdown to have had any impact. On the contrary, that's exactly what you'd see if lockdown had maximum effect. Suppose lockdown were totally effective, such that nobody contracted a new infection of the disease after policies become effective. In that best-case situation, the medical system would still have to deal with everyone who contracted the illness up to this point. Because the virus spreads exponentially, the curve of "newly-contracted infections" would come to a peak just before lockdown and then fall to zero afterwards. Those cases would then go through their normal progression, and some would die -- about two weeks after contracting the illness. This single observation isn't enough to conclude that lockdown is effective since it doesn't rule out other possibilities for a declining death rate (medical treatments, bad reporting, etc), but it's certainly not evidence against the efficacy of lockdown policies. > The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. A "bell curve" for disease progression implies a typical logistic curve for the number of total cases. That in turn implies that the community is nearing a 'herd immunity' level. No nation in the world has anywhere near 'herd immunity' yet. With the highly-transmissible nature of nCoV, more than half of a population would need to be infected to confer herd immunity. > The countries that have done well implemented test and trace early, The problem here is that you can't implement test and trace late. Public health officials have a finite contact-tracing capability. One community transmission exceeds this threshold, the only tool left is lockdown -- specifically to reduce transmission down to the point where tracing is again possible.
TopHand 6y ago
This is fear mongering at best. Anyone who has had a major injury or has been majorly effected by a disease such as pneumonia knows that it takes years to recover. It's only on TV a person receives an injury or is struck with a disease and the next weeks episode is as strong and healthy as in the previous episodes. It takes a long time to recover to full health, if ever. So of course people who have been hit hard by COVID-19 are going to take a long time to recover to their original state of health, if ever. However, until 70% to 80% of us have had the disease, or an effective vaccine is created, people are going to continue to get this disease. Hiding in our homes in fear...

i think this is why people who say "let people just take thier chances" dont really understand what they are in for... its more than just death-rate vs survival-rate...

jswizzy 6y ago

you could say the same thing about people who want to shut everything down.

newacct583 6y ago
You could, except that group is a strawman that doesn't exist. No one "wants to shut everything down". Everyone wants to go back to normal, the question is how quickly. Most of the people you're arguing about think that lockdowns along the lines of what were seen in east asia would have been ideal. Taiwan and South Korea seem to have this contained now. Germany is very close. These countries are getting back to normal with very low death tolls as we speak. They certainly didn't "shut everything down". The US is way behind, largely because its lockdowns haven't been well-heeded by people who think they constitute "shutting everything down". But we're not that far behind that the lockdowns have failed, either. Stay home. We're beating this.
- kristianc 6y ago
  > Taiwan and South Korea seem to have this contained now. Germany is very close. These countries are getting back to normal with very low death tolls as we speak. They certainly didn't "shut everything down". The death rates in these countries also peaked about two weeks into lockdown, way too soon for lockdown to have had any impact. The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. The countries that have done well implemented test and trace early, and got people who had tested positive with COVID well out the way of anyone else in hospital wards.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. I don't know what you mean, except that they go up exponentially and then they go down exponentially and so that's a "bell" curve[1]. The important metric isn't the shape of the thing, it's the size. And the sizes of these curves very widely between nations, tracking lockdown agility and adherence surprisingly well. [1] That observation is, frankly, pretty trivial. Outbreaks grow with some probability from every individual case, so the derivative is proportional to the value of the function, always. They must have an exponential shape on both sides. That's just math.
  - Majromax 6y ago
    > The death rates in these countries also peaked about two weeks into lockdown, way too soon for lockdown to have had any impact. On the contrary, that's exactly what you'd see if lockdown had maximum effect. Suppose lockdown were totally effective, such that nobody contracted a new infection of the disease after policies become effective. In that best-case situation, the medical system would still have to deal with everyone who contracted the illness up to this point. Because the virus spreads exponentially, the curve of "newly-contracted infections" would come to a peak just before lockdown and then fall to zero afterwards. Those cases would then go through their normal progression, and some would die -- about two weeks after contracting the illness. This single observation isn't enough to conclude that lockdown is effective since it doesn't rule out other possibilities for a declining death rate (medical treatments, bad reporting, etc), but it's certainly not evidence against the efficacy of lockdown policies. > The death rates are also following a similar bell curve across the world, seemingly independent of any lockdown policy. A "bell curve" for disease progression implies a typical logistic curve for the number of total cases. That in turn implies that the community is nearing a 'herd immunity' level. No nation in the world has anywhere near 'herd immunity' yet. With the highly-transmissible nature of nCoV, more than half of a population would need to be infected to confer herd immunity. > The countries that have done well implemented test and trace early, The problem here is that you can't implement test and trace late. Public health officials have a finite contact-tracing capability. One community transmission exceeds this threshold, the only tool left is lockdown -- specifically to reduce transmission down to the point where tracing is again possible.

TopHand 6y ago

This is fear mongering at best. Anyone who has had a major injury or has been majorly effected by a disease such as pneumonia knows that it takes years to recover. It's only on TV a person receives an injury or is struck with a disease and the next weeks episode is as strong and healthy as in the previous episodes. It takes a long time to recover to full health, if ever. So of course people who have been hit hard by COVID-19 are going to take a long time to recover to their original state of health, if ever. However, until 70% to 80% of us have had the disease, or an effective vaccine is created, people are going to continue to get this disease. Hiding in our homes in fear...