5 ms·

> My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without suffic

> My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without sufficient mitigation. The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison. We definitely agree there. However, why do you think NYC is not an example of lockdowns not working and that we should instead isolate the vulnerable populations? Its both the most severe lockdowned place and the place with the highest coronavirus death rate. Also, most states are now open or are reopening. We are not seeing spikes in coronavirus cases or deaths, and we are instead seeing huge drops in deaths per week directly undermining the heavy handed lockdowns [3]. Also, despite each worker of Wallmart, Target, Whole Foods, Safeways, Wallgreens etc being exposed to thousands a day not a single store was closed due to covid outbreaks. How come that is the case? Locking down non-vulnerable populations is what I think is unjustified, and the evidence I present show that the heavy handed lockdown doesn't reliably reduce deaths and that targeted isolations of vulnerable populations does reliably reduce deaths. One shared component of sweden and NYC [1,2] is that they didn't properly mitigate for vulnerable populations. Sweden is mitigating by isolating vulnerable populations while NYC isn't [1]. However, NYC somehow managed to have the most severe lockdown and by far the highest death rate. TLDR; If you have to isolate the vulnerable to significantly reduce deaths in both lockdown and non-lockdown, and lockdown doesn't reliably make a difference. Why not just go with the more effective targeted mitigations and drop the ineffective isolation of all? [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-sent-recovering-coronavirus-patients-to-nursing-homes-it-was-a-fatal-error-11589470773 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-sent-recovering-corona... [2] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/sw... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

unclebucknasty 6y ago
Your analysis is riddled with errors. Foremost, it's far too early to make the call on the effects of "re-opening". Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown. That is, many, many people are still virtually locked down--voluntarily. Yet another issue your analysis overlooks is the measures we actually did take prior to full lockdown, wherein we in fact suggested that vulnerable populations self-isolate. This was not effective in slowing the spread; hence, the lockdown escalation. Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus. But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing, etc. and the resulting behavior changes (including fewer trips) meant bodies per store were dramatically reduced, helping to undercut transmission. And, the point there is that accommodations for essential trips to the store under such prescribed conditions were provided as part of the lockdown. So, you are trying to use the lockdown design itself as proof that the lockdown was unnecessary. TLDR; This is frequently the story with these anti-lockdown claims: a revisionist look back at why the lockdown was "unnecessary", using precisely the design and benefits of the lockdown itself to make the case.
- asabjorn 6y ago
  Your criticism does not make sense at all. I wish you addressed my questions and criticisms of your argument instead of bringing up new points, but I'll address your new points as well. > Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown You have a faulty assumption that spread factor was reduced due to lockdown. 7 states did not close down (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and many states that locked down has been open for weeks now [1]. We have not see a spike in neither of these scenarios relative to the still locked down states. Again: there is no correlation between being locked down and reduced spread factor. Quite to the contrary NYC and other places under heavy lock-down has been the worst affected. > Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus. You honestly that all those workers are symptomatic in a high exposure scenario at a lower rate than the general population? And you honestly claiming that a highly contagious virus that you claim has such a high likelihood of hospitalization and death that we all need to be on lockdown, somehow doesn't have this effect to the same degree on grocery workers that are exposed more than anyone? All ages work in grocery stores [3]. Grocery store workers are heroes, but I didn't know they were superheroes. > But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing That doesn't make sense if the desire is to reduce peak traffic. Limiting store hours with a similar amount of shoppers increase people per hour of shopping, and limiting concurrent shoppers cause huge lines outside. Arguably this may increase virus exposure. In-store-distancing: covid is transmitted on and can stay alive on metals, plastics as well as other inside surfaces for an extended period. Up to a day on cardboard. * scientific facts on ineffectiveness of major lockdown measures N95 masks work: mask to filter out 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. Coronavirus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Social distancing doesn't stop you from being exposed by: - virus suspended in droplets smaller than five micrometers can stay suspended for about a half-hour - virus stays alive up to a day on everything in a grocery store (or any other store or delivery container); cardboard, plastics, metals Wearing gloves: virus actually lives longer on plastic gloves and gloves in general worsens spread [2] TLDR; Only highly targeted and managed approaches has worked in limiting deaths, such as isolating the vulnerable. The lockdown measures and protective gear people wear are not stopping the virus spread due to virus size as well as how it spreads, but it is an excellent signal of obedience to nonsense measures. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reopening-america-see-what-states-across-u-s-are-starting-n1195676 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reopening-america-see-w... [2] https://www.orthospinenews.com/2020/04/23/spreading-coronavirus-why-wearing-gloves-to-supermarket-isnt-helping/ https://www.orthospinenews.com/2020/04/23/spreading-coronavi... [3] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm

unclebucknasty 6y ago

Your analysis is riddled with errors. Foremost, it's far too early to make the call on the effects of "re-opening". Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown. That is, many, many people are still virtually locked down--voluntarily. Yet another issue your analysis overlooks is the measures we actually did take prior to full lockdown, wherein we in fact suggested that vulnerable populations self-isolate. This was not effective in slowing the spread; hence, the lockdown escalation. Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus. But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing, etc. and the resulting behavior changes (including fewer trips) meant bodies per store were dramatically reduced, helping to undercut transmission. And, the point there is that accommodations for essential trips to the store under such prescribed conditions were provided as part of the lockdown. So, you are trying to use the lockdown design itself as proof that the lockdown was unnecessary. TLDR; This is frequently the story with these anti-lockdown claims: a revisionist look back at why the lockdown was "unnecessary", using precisely the design and benefits of the lockdown itself to make the case.

asabjorn 6y ago
Your criticism does not make sense at all. I wish you addressed my questions and criticisms of your argument instead of bringing up new points, but I'll address your new points as well. > Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown You have a faulty assumption that spread factor was reduced due to lockdown. 7 states did not close down (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and many states that locked down has been open for weeks now [1]. We have not see a spike in neither of these scenarios relative to the still locked down states. Again: there is no correlation between being locked down and reduced spread factor. Quite to the contrary NYC and other places under heavy lock-down has been the worst affected. > Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus. You honestly that all those workers are symptomatic in a high exposure scenario at a lower rate than the general population? And you honestly claiming that a highly contagious virus that you claim has such a high likelihood of hospitalization and death that we all need to be on lockdown, somehow doesn't have this effect to the same degree on grocery workers that are exposed more than anyone? All ages work in grocery stores [3]. Grocery store workers are heroes, but I didn't know they were superheroes. > But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing That doesn't make sense if the desire is to reduce peak traffic. Limiting store hours with a similar amount of shoppers increase people per hour of shopping, and limiting concurrent shoppers cause huge lines outside. Arguably this may increase virus exposure. In-store-distancing: covid is transmitted on and can stay alive on metals, plastics as well as other inside surfaces for an extended period. Up to a day on cardboard. * scientific facts on ineffectiveness of major lockdown measures N95 masks work: mask to filter out 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. Coronavirus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Social distancing doesn't stop you from being exposed by: - virus suspended in droplets smaller than five micrometers can stay suspended for about a half-hour - virus stays alive up to a day on everything in a grocery store (or any other store or delivery container); cardboard, plastics, metals Wearing gloves: virus actually lives longer on plastic gloves and gloves in general worsens spread [2] TLDR; Only highly targeted and managed approaches has worked in limiting deaths, such as isolating the vulnerable. The lockdown measures and protective gear people wear are not stopping the virus spread due to virus size as well as how it spreads, but it is an excellent signal of obedience to nonsense measures. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reopening-america-see-what-states-across-u-s-are-starting-n1195676 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reopening-america-see-w... [2] https://www.orthospinenews.com/2020/04/23/spreading-coronavirus-why-wearing-gloves-to-supermarket-isnt-helping/ https://www.orthospinenews.com/2020/04/23/spreading-coronavi... [3] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm