4 ms·
That is a bit of an oversimplification. Lockdowns don't go on forever, so what we are considering are the criteria for ending. There are other mitigations alr
by m0llusk 6y ago
That is a bit of an oversimplification. Lockdowns don't go on forever, so what we are considering are the criteria for ending. There are other mitigations already proven and more on the way. Currently distancing, handwashing, masks, testing, and contact tracing have shown significant ability to reduce flare ups. Additionally various drugs targeting either the virus or its interactions with humans are coming available and there is already one vaccine beginning trials. These lockdowns began when initial counts of infected and killed suggested and extremely high rate of infection. Since then we have come to understand that appearance of a high initial rate was in part caused by the virus escaping into the general population earlier than realized. Perhaps most important there is now data from populations not locking down, locking down modestly, locking down strictly, and ending lockdown and there is very little evidence that lockdowns are having a strong effect. It is long understood by virologists and epidemiologists that if an infectious agent spreads to the general population lockdowns cease to have a demonstrable positive effect.
- shadowprofile77 6y agoSource on the virus escaping into the population earlier than thought being a cause of high initial infection rate numbers? If you don't mind. I'm honestly curious
- m0llusk 6y agoThat is actually a difficult question to answer properly. At a high level I have been following COVID-19 through many sources, primarily summaries on University of California Television and Ivor Cummins on YouTube and then going from there to reading the most notable studies. It is fairly basic, though. If you look at early data we were going from just a few cases to many quite quickly and it makes sense that extrapolation from the first small numbers ended up being off.