4 ms·

So the message is that the lockdown is a failure, the only way it could help if it is maintained until there is a vaccine. Good luck with that!

mrpopo 7y ago
That's the message you are reading. The lockdown brought precious times for supply chains to start relocating, for cosmetic industries to start producing hydro-alcoholic gel, for hospitals to enter crisis mode without the staff burning out too fast, for legislators to discuss emergency measures, etc. All these things helped France prepare for the lockdown measures lifting, and most likely saved lives. No country except Sweden is setting a goal of reaching herd immunity. Reaching herd immunity is a failure in itself, it means a good fraction of the population will die (whether the hospitals are overloaded or not).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- z_open 7y ago
  Herd immunity is absolutely not a failure. The point is to have young healthy people get the virus who will neither die, nor require hospitalization. Once this population has substantial immunity, risk drops drastically for the at risk people.
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    > The point is to have young healthy people get the virus who will neither die, nor require hospitalization. This is a novel virus that is not entirely understood yet. Maybe the majority of these young healthy people would not die (only 0.2%, and I wish you won't be one of them), but they might get serious complications that will accompany them for the rest of their lives. Maybe they will be more subject to strokes, lung failures, etc. later in life. Maybe the virus won't kill them now but reduce their life expectancy by 10 years. How does that sound?
    - z_open 7y ago
      > How does that sound? It sounds hypothetical. You said herd immunity involves a good fraction of the population dying which you don't know. Serious complications for the non-risk population is neither known nor expected.
      - mrpopo 7y ago
        > You said herd immunity involves a good fraction of the population dying which you don't know It's well-known by now that even the low-risk population (<50 age group) still has a 0.x% risk of dying directly from covid. It's insane that people are still minimising this. > Serious complications for the non-risk population is neither known nor expected. 1) it's "low-risk". "No-risk" is for the 0-20 age group, and they are not enough to provide herd immunity. 2) here is one known and documented complication for young people affected with covid. Doctors Link COVID-19 To Potentially Deadly Blood Clots And Strokes https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/847917017/doctors-link-covid-19-to-potentially-deadly-blood-clots-and-strokes https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/8479170... There is not enough data yet to infer on long-term complications yet. But doctors are definitely monitoring this.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        s1artibartfast 7y ago
        for what it is worth, I believe it is a 0.0X% chance of dying for < 50. Alternatively put, x/10,000. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/12/science.abc3517 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/12/scie...
- foolzcrow 7y ago
  Sorry but lockdown is about permanent control. Scientists said lockdown does NOT help. This was a global martial law test. Period. Countries with no lockdown did fine. 0.1 deathrate is never enough to justify complete suspension of human rights and police beatings for no masks. We could have fought this while keeping civil liberties. They chose draconian route intentionally.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  The supply chains have alcohol gel so they can clean the people who are going to get infected anyway? These are all a bunch of far fetched excuses for the fact that unless you can afford to wait for a vaccine or treatment, you can’t protect people from corona. You can only waste a lot of money on delaying it. This might have been less obvious back then but it surely should be glaringly obvious now. It’s just hard to admit when you’ve just wasted billions on a failure. By the way the big ‘failure’ of Sweden is now further along the road to immunity and had less people dying per million than the great ‘success’ of France.

mrpopo 7y ago

That's the message you are reading. The lockdown brought precious times for supply chains to start relocating, for cosmetic industries to start producing hydro-alcoholic gel, for hospitals to enter crisis mode without the staff burning out too fast, for legislators to discuss emergency measures, etc. All these things helped France prepare for the lockdown measures lifting, and most likely saved lives. No country except Sweden is setting a goal of reaching herd immunity. Reaching herd immunity is a failure in itself, it means a good fraction of the population will die (whether the hospitals are overloaded or not).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
z_open 7y ago
Herd immunity is absolutely not a failure. The point is to have young healthy people get the virus who will neither die, nor require hospitalization. Once this population has substantial immunity, risk drops drastically for the at risk people.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > The point is to have young healthy people get the virus who will neither die, nor require hospitalization. This is a novel virus that is not entirely understood yet. Maybe the majority of these young healthy people would not die (only 0.2%, and I wish you won't be one of them), but they might get serious complications that will accompany them for the rest of their lives. Maybe they will be more subject to strokes, lung failures, etc. later in life. Maybe the virus won't kill them now but reduce their life expectancy by 10 years. How does that sound?
  - z_open 7y ago
    > How does that sound? It sounds hypothetical. You said herd immunity involves a good fraction of the population dying which you don't know. Serious complications for the non-risk population is neither known nor expected.
    - mrpopo 7y ago
      > You said herd immunity involves a good fraction of the population dying which you don't know It's well-known by now that even the low-risk population (<50 age group) still has a 0.x% risk of dying directly from covid. It's insane that people are still minimising this. > Serious complications for the non-risk population is neither known nor expected. 1) it's "low-risk". "No-risk" is for the 0-20 age group, and they are not enough to provide herd immunity. 2) here is one known and documented complication for young people affected with covid. Doctors Link COVID-19 To Potentially Deadly Blood Clots And Strokes https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/847917017/doctors-link-covid-19-to-potentially-deadly-blood-clots-and-strokes https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/8479170... There is not enough data yet to infer on long-term complications yet. But doctors are definitely monitoring this.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - s1artibartfast 7y ago
        for what it is worth, I believe it is a 0.0X% chance of dying for < 50. Alternatively put, x/10,000. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/12/science.abc3517 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/12/scie...
foolzcrow 7y ago
Sorry but lockdown is about permanent control. Scientists said lockdown does NOT help. This was a global martial law test. Period. Countries with no lockdown did fine. 0.1 deathrate is never enough to justify complete suspension of human rights and police beatings for no masks. We could have fought this while keeping civil liberties. They chose draconian route intentionally.
tinus_hn 7y ago
The supply chains have alcohol gel so they can clean the people who are going to get infected anyway? These are all a bunch of far fetched excuses for the fact that unless you can afford to wait for a vaccine or treatment, you can’t protect people from corona. You can only waste a lot of money on delaying it. This might have been less obvious back then but it surely should be glaringly obvious now. It’s just hard to admit when you’ve just wasted billions on a failure. By the way the big ‘failure’ of Sweden is now further along the road to immunity and had less people dying per million than the great ‘success’ of France.