11 ms·

"No more than 25% of hospital beds in any state are occupied by coronavirus patients." There seem to be two camps on this topic. One says that this is great, a

"No more than 25% of hospital beds in any state are occupied by coronavirus patients." There seem to be two camps on this topic. One says that this is great, and we should continue every effort possible to stop the spread, presumably for an unlimited number of months or even years. That means staying locked down with minimal economic activity and somehow dealing with the consequences as they come. This is the "wait for the vaccine" camp, which I find hard to join because even if a safe vaccine can be created, it could be a year or two before it is sufficiently tested and deployed. California seems to be leading this camp in the US. The second camp says that excess healthcare capacity means we should begin reopening the economy until capacity becomes strained. This is the "let the virus spread" camp, and implicit in the argument is that we should allow more people to die from the virus. This camp is winning. Most states and Western nations have started to ease restrictions knowing full well that it means the virus will spread. The hope is that less stringent restrictions can still allow the rate of transmission to be controlled enough to avoid catastrophe. (There is also a third, fringe camp in the US of right-wingers, and while it is easy to dismiss them, they are actually winning in states like Georgia and Texas) My understanding at the start of lockdowns was that these were intended to "bend the curve" so we could get control of the situation and then allow the virus to spread at a rate that would not overwhelm healthcare capacity. But more and more people I know seem to be in the "wait for a vaccine" camp. Personally, my imagination struggles to comprehend what another 12+ months of lockdowns would mean for civilization. The loss of life from disease, though obviously abhorrent, is actually a concept my brain can manage (which is not to imply it has more merit, just an honest observation).

0xB31B1B 6y ago
I don’t think this framing is correct. No one wants things to be shut down until we have a vaccine, they want it to be shut down until we have a test and trace infrastructure in place. California’s reopen plan is gated by test and trace. It’s What every other developed country in the world is doing to allow them to reopen. We see this framed by right wingers as “stay closed” vs “open up” because they understand that this administration isn’t capable of launching an effective spread prevention program and are now solely focusing on shifting the blame.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Almost all US states have now eased restrictions and with barely a test and trace program among them (maybe some programs in the Northeast, but where else?). And if California is truly waiting for testing capacity, they may be waiting a long time because their rate of testing is extremely low compared to places that have opened up. New York has twice the per capita testing as CA and they have already began opening up parts of the state (despite being hit many times harder by the virus). Even NYC is about to hit the criteria for some reopening. Meanwhile, LA announced they would continue their lockdown until August. That sure sounds like they are on a "wait for a vaccine" plan. The European nations that have eased restrictions have higher per capita testing than most US states. But they do not all have robust test and trace programs. Denmark opened up weeks ago, including many schools, but only last week announced a test and trace program.
- fourmyle 6y ago
  I can’t even imagine the levels of civil disobedience in America if a track and trace program is mandated. WA state, left leaning, already proposed track and trace to go to restaurants and already walked it back after pressure. People are starting to run out of money and food and they will turn to violence. We need to follow the same light social distancing approach as Sweden and Florida imo.
  - michaelbuckbee 6y ago
    What's the reasoning for the pushback on track and trace? Concerns about government overreach?
    - dnautics 6y ago
      Which government contractor do you trust with that information?
    - fourmyle 6y ago
      Getting sued because you happened to be in same restaurant as someone who got covid.
gotoeleven 6y ago
And what's going to happen when there is a vaccine and it's only 50% effective or whatever it's likely to be? Will they move the goalposts again? The economic toll of these lockdowns is going to have real effects on economic well-being (and health outcomes!) worldwide. I'll bet the cost just in human life will end up being greater from the lockdowns than from the virus.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  You only need a certain level of vaccine effectiveness in order to reach herd immunity and reduce the spread of the virus. Even a 50% effective vaccine might also reduce the overall danger of the coronavirus if you do end up catching it as well. Frankly speaking, the idea that opening up will somehow fix everything isn't true. People are still going to be afraid to go to public places, and we have multiple examples of cities or areas that decided to open up too early getting slammed by a second wave of infections (See: Hokkaido, Texas). So yes, in this case it's a 'moving goalposts' situation because our knowledge and way of dealing with the coronavirus evolves over time. That's the entire point of slowly opening up with a viable test infrastructure. If you don't adjust as the situation evolves, then you get hit with a second wave making the lockdown pointless and prolonging the economic effects. Especially if people start suing local businesses when they get sick for not following the guidelines.
  - gotoeleven 6y ago
    I get your point, but to me hospital underutilization implies that whatever restrictions there are, they can be eased more. Ease the lockdown restrictions in a reasonable way and watch for runaway growth in cases.
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    > and we have multiple examples of cities or areas that decided to open up too early getting slammed by a second wave of infections (See: Hokkaido, Texas) Where are you seeing that Texas is getting "slammed by a second wave"? I'm looking at Worldometers, and their daily new cases looks relatively flat. Apparently there was a big jump yesterday, but the state is claiming that correlates with a much higher rate of testing. (This is part of why we should look at the 7 day average, not just the day by day numbers.) If their rate does happen to be increasing, what makes that a second wave, vs them just not hitting the peak of their first wave yet?
ghaff 6y ago
I tend to stay out of these discussions but there has been a huge shifting of the goalposts. >My understanding at the start of lockdowns was that these were intended to "bend the curve" so we could get control of the situation and then allow the virus to spread at a rate that would not overwhelm healthcare capacity. Yes. The standard argument went along the lines of we have to limit movement and interactions for a while so that we can "flatten the curve" and not overwhelm the hospital system. Now that that has happened in most cases, though, the goalpost has moved towards the availability of a hopefully effective vaccine in the next year or two [ADDED: and/or maybe effective testing/tracing whose effectiveness in general is TBD]. Which, even if we assume some behaviors change, doesn't seem like a practical long-term strategy.
- daenz 6y ago
  Bingo. It seemed like most people were on board with the idea of flattening the curve because it was a compromise: don't overwhelm the healthcare system, but continue life as much as possible. No unnecessary extra deaths, but no unnecessary shutdowns. Now we seem to have thrown that message out the window completely and it feels super deceptive.
- davidw 6y ago
  > whose effectiveness in general is TBD Only if you don't look at countries where it seems to be working pretty well, mostly in Asia.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But those countries don't actually believe contact tracing is effective. When China sees a cluster of cases, they don't say "it's cool because contact tracing will protect us", they lock down the city until the cluster goes away.
    - davidw 6y ago
      You are lumping in a lot of quite diverse places. China and South Korea took quite different approaches. China's is, as you state, very blunt. South Korea has used contact tracing to good effect. My comment wasn't "all countries in Asia", it was about countries in Asia using contact tracing well.
gregwebs 6y ago
This is a tragic US centric point of view. From an international point of view there are 2 camps: aggressive and complacent. Aggressive means contact tracing every single case. This is only possible with using all the gold standard tools to reduce virus spread: massive testing, travel restrictions, universal masking, and sanitizing. South Korea has demonstrated that this works fairly well even in a democracy even with few social distancing policies. They only recently closed bars. The biggest dividing line here seems to be masks. Countries whose leaders initially told them not to wear masks are struggling to achieve universal masking compliance. Most seem to have given up on being aggressive and are now having these debates of complacency.
- dnautics 6y ago
  What's the evidence again that universal masking compliance works and is necessary? It seems that some jurisdictions like California (or, hell, Wyoming, way lower than any country in Asia) have had very low transmission rates without it.
  - testbot123 6y ago
    California had early, aggressive social distancing orders and large parts of California had/have manditory mask orders in place. Bay area: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-bay-area-mask-order-takes-effect-wednesday-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-bay-area-... San Diego: https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/what-to-know-about-the-san-diego-countys-mask-order https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/what-to-know-about-t... Los Angeles: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid-garcetti-orders-face-masks-outside-homes-los-angeles/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid...
    - dnautics 6y ago
      Mandatory masks orders for enclosed spaces, but not for outdoors, which is presumably what is meant by "universal".

0xB31B1B 6y ago

I don’t think this framing is correct. No one wants things to be shut down until we have a vaccine, they want it to be shut down until we have a test and trace infrastructure in place. California’s reopen plan is gated by test and trace. It’s What every other developed country in the world is doing to allow them to reopen. We see this framed by right wingers as “stay closed” vs “open up” because they understand that this administration isn’t capable of launching an effective spread prevention program and are now solely focusing on shifting the blame.

standardUser 6y ago
Almost all US states have now eased restrictions and with barely a test and trace program among them (maybe some programs in the Northeast, but where else?). And if California is truly waiting for testing capacity, they may be waiting a long time because their rate of testing is extremely low compared to places that have opened up. New York has twice the per capita testing as CA and they have already began opening up parts of the state (despite being hit many times harder by the virus). Even NYC is about to hit the criteria for some reopening. Meanwhile, LA announced they would continue their lockdown until August. That sure sounds like they are on a "wait for a vaccine" plan. The European nations that have eased restrictions have higher per capita testing than most US states. But they do not all have robust test and trace programs. Denmark opened up weeks ago, including many schools, but only last week announced a test and trace program.
fourmyle 6y ago
I can’t even imagine the levels of civil disobedience in America if a track and trace program is mandated. WA state, left leaning, already proposed track and trace to go to restaurants and already walked it back after pressure. People are starting to run out of money and food and they will turn to violence. We need to follow the same light social distancing approach as Sweden and Florida imo.
- michaelbuckbee 6y ago
  What's the reasoning for the pushback on track and trace? Concerns about government overreach?
  - dnautics 6y ago
    Which government contractor do you trust with that information?
  - fourmyle 6y ago
    Getting sued because you happened to be in same restaurant as someone who got covid.

gotoeleven 6y ago

And what's going to happen when there is a vaccine and it's only 50% effective or whatever it's likely to be? Will they move the goalposts again? The economic toll of these lockdowns is going to have real effects on economic well-being (and health outcomes!) worldwide. I'll bet the cost just in human life will end up being greater from the lockdowns than from the virus.

fzeroracer 6y ago
You only need a certain level of vaccine effectiveness in order to reach herd immunity and reduce the spread of the virus. Even a 50% effective vaccine might also reduce the overall danger of the coronavirus if you do end up catching it as well. Frankly speaking, the idea that opening up will somehow fix everything isn't true. People are still going to be afraid to go to public places, and we have multiple examples of cities or areas that decided to open up too early getting slammed by a second wave of infections (See: Hokkaido, Texas). So yes, in this case it's a 'moving goalposts' situation because our knowledge and way of dealing with the coronavirus evolves over time. That's the entire point of slowly opening up with a viable test infrastructure. If you don't adjust as the situation evolves, then you get hit with a second wave making the lockdown pointless and prolonging the economic effects. Especially if people start suing local businesses when they get sick for not following the guidelines.
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  I get your point, but to me hospital underutilization implies that whatever restrictions there are, they can be eased more. Ease the lockdown restrictions in a reasonable way and watch for runaway growth in cases.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  > and we have multiple examples of cities or areas that decided to open up too early getting slammed by a second wave of infections (See: Hokkaido, Texas) Where are you seeing that Texas is getting "slammed by a second wave"? I'm looking at Worldometers, and their daily new cases looks relatively flat. Apparently there was a big jump yesterday, but the state is claiming that correlates with a much higher rate of testing. (This is part of why we should look at the 7 day average, not just the day by day numbers.) If their rate does happen to be increasing, what makes that a second wave, vs them just not hitting the peak of their first wave yet?

ghaff 6y ago

I tend to stay out of these discussions but there has been a huge shifting of the goalposts. >My understanding at the start of lockdowns was that these were intended to "bend the curve" so we could get control of the situation and then allow the virus to spread at a rate that would not overwhelm healthcare capacity. Yes. The standard argument went along the lines of we have to limit movement and interactions for a while so that we can "flatten the curve" and not overwhelm the hospital system. Now that that has happened in most cases, though, the goalpost has moved towards the availability of a hopefully effective vaccine in the next year or two [ADDED: and/or maybe effective testing/tracing whose effectiveness in general is TBD]. Which, even if we assume some behaviors change, doesn't seem like a practical long-term strategy.

daenz 6y ago
Bingo. It seemed like most people were on board with the idea of flattening the curve because it was a compromise: don't overwhelm the healthcare system, but continue life as much as possible. No unnecessary extra deaths, but no unnecessary shutdowns. Now we seem to have thrown that message out the window completely and it feels super deceptive.
davidw 6y ago
> whose effectiveness in general is TBD Only if you don't look at countries where it seems to be working pretty well, mostly in Asia.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But those countries don't actually believe contact tracing is effective. When China sees a cluster of cases, they don't say "it's cool because contact tracing will protect us", they lock down the city until the cluster goes away.
  - davidw 6y ago
    You are lumping in a lot of quite diverse places. China and South Korea took quite different approaches. China's is, as you state, very blunt. South Korea has used contact tracing to good effect. My comment wasn't "all countries in Asia", it was about countries in Asia using contact tracing well.

gregwebs 6y ago

This is a tragic US centric point of view. From an international point of view there are 2 camps: aggressive and complacent. Aggressive means contact tracing every single case. This is only possible with using all the gold standard tools to reduce virus spread: massive testing, travel restrictions, universal masking, and sanitizing. South Korea has demonstrated that this works fairly well even in a democracy even with few social distancing policies. They only recently closed bars. The biggest dividing line here seems to be masks. Countries whose leaders initially told them not to wear masks are struggling to achieve universal masking compliance. Most seem to have given up on being aggressive and are now having these debates of complacency.

dnautics 6y ago
What's the evidence again that universal masking compliance works and is necessary? It seems that some jurisdictions like California (or, hell, Wyoming, way lower than any country in Asia) have had very low transmission rates without it.
- testbot123 6y ago
  California had early, aggressive social distancing orders and large parts of California had/have manditory mask orders in place. Bay area: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-bay-area-mask-order-takes-effect-wednesday-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-bay-area-... San Diego: https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/what-to-know-about-the-san-diego-countys-mask-order https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/what-to-know-about-t... Los Angeles: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid-garcetti-orders-face-masks-outside-homes-los-angeles/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-covid...
  - dnautics 6y ago
    Mandatory masks orders for enclosed spaces, but not for outdoors, which is presumably what is meant by "universal".