5 ms·

Shh. You're not allowed to think that. In all seriousness, I've been really disappointed with people who I respect who have consistently belittled anyone who q

Shh. You're not allowed to think that. In all seriousness, I've been really disappointed with people who I respect who have consistently belittled anyone who questions the prudence of the lockdown. "Covidiot" is thrown around indiscriminately. The other thing that has surprised me is how many people use absolute numbers rather than per-capita numbers in order to prove their points. I even found Neil deGrasse Tyson doing this on Twitter.

Skunkleton 6y ago
Per-capita and absolute numbers are both incorrect. What matters is local concentrations. For example, If all of cases were contained to a few metro areas then there would be no problem outside those areas. This would not be reflected in per-capita numbers.
asveikau 6y ago
Well, a lot of people feel, I think accurately, that the lockdowns are what are or were keeping the case load relatively low. Regarding absolute numbers, in the early phase when we had a 2-3 day doubling rate, per capita numbers didn't matter very much because you only needed ~2 days for it to double, so any difference in per capita cases saw that gap closed pretty quickly. So for instance, I saw people downplaying the danger by saying "sure Italy has it bad, but the US has 5x the population". That missed the point a bit. It didn't take that long for the US to become the leader in absolute number of cases, then a bit more for it to exceed per capita rates of Italy. Probably both would have happened sooner had there not been any intervention.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Sure, but certainly it's a complex enough scenario with enough variables that we should be able to at least have a conversation around what to do without resorting to name calling, yes?
  - Spellman 6y ago
    Sure, and many are. Economists, Epidemiologist, and many in the science and political communities are having these conversations. It's just that opening the economy has also become politicized and the armchair social media "experts" have begun chanting "OPEN UP!" without any sort of nuance repeatedly multiple times a day and overwhelming the conversations and suggestions of the reasonable folks with data. So, by default, the initial reaction is assume someone making that suggestion is they're more likely to be an emotional appeal than a rational discussion partner.
    - joshuahughes 6y ago
      > without any sort of nuance I think this accusation is equally applicable for politicians though. There has been precious little nuance in blanket lockdowns that don’t acknowledge how vastly different in risk different activities are (e.g. sunbathing in a park vs clubbing). Seems to me like the shouts of “OPEN UP!” are simply a response to the knee-jerk “SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!” that everyone has had to live with for the last few months.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        Except it's not "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING". It's shut down all non-essential mass gatherings until we can get a handle on the situation. All of the governors who implemented strict shelter-in-place orders have also released detailed plans for re-opening safely.
        joshuahughes 6y ago
        Where I am (Scotland) it WAS pretty much everything. Only shops selling food, medicine, or maintenance products are allowed to open. All others have been shut for ~2 months now. Driving is strictly forbidden unless you’re travelling to one of these stores that have been ‘deemed essential’. We’re not allowed to meet anyone outside of our household, even in a socially-distanced outside context. I have friends unlucky enough to be living alone and single, and the lockdown is destroying them, to the point that they’re secretly meeting other single friends to stay sane. All of this is in spite of the fact that there are thousands of jobs and activities that can be EASILY done whilst also socially distancing. Of course, it requires vastly more thought and effort to come up with rational guidelines that take into consideration all of this nuance, and governments (mostly because of shortsightedness) haven’t had the time to create more humane lockdown solutions, hence the indiscriminate restrictions that have been brought in by countries the world over.
- tomohawk 6y ago
  The lockdowns are eroding the legitimacy and respect for authority. Instead of leading the people, the authorities are fighting with them.
  - thomaslord 6y ago
    Personally I'd contend that leaders who choose not to take action to protect public health (or even try to deceive their constituents) are eroding the legitimacy and respect for their authority.
badrabbit 6y ago
I was against starting the long term lockdown. I would think they would have mobilized field hospitals care at a national scale as a long term solution, since they say most people will get it no matter what. Absolute numbers are important,those are facts. This isn't a routine disease society has accepted,it can be contained and prevented,per capita does not help guage resource needs. But if you do start a lockdown you can't half-ass it because that would literally be the worst option. The markets are ok because the shutdown is intentional. The markets would not be ok if spending and revenue loss was a result of people being fearful and panicky.the goal know should be a smooth and quick recovery at the right time, not a rough,rushed and messy one.
travisporter 6y ago
No need to compartmentalise. People’s thoughts, sentiments and opinions change (sometimes) based on facts. You’re not belittling this person but you are poking fun the community by saying that it would not accept this opinion.
_jal 6y ago
I'm tired of people pretending they're only "asking questions" when they're pushing for a full reopen. Acting like you're surprised there are unreasonable people saying things and using that to cast anyone who is more cautious as the same is dishonest and cowardly. If someone actually has questions, they should ask them. Otherwise if they don't have the courage to own their political position, I don't consider them part of the conversation.
- Spellman 6y ago
  This has to be one of my most-hated "tricks." "I don't believe this long video I just posted. But it does make you think." No, I'm pretty sure you believe and are promoting said video. "I'm just asking questions here." No, you clearly have an agenda and opinion and want to bait others who are unsure into a discussion with you. For the rare folks with honest questions, we can have a real explanation. For honest people who want to discuss, we can have a discussion. But being coy and "asking" when you already have a position you won't actually change seems extremely disingenuous.
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Locking down is the only current viable tactic the US has against C-19. We have: - terrible testing coverage - no contact tracing - massively inefficient healthcare system - massively inefficient supply lines for masks and gloves - insufficient social programs to support the unemployed Either we lock down, mitigate the effects of our already broken systems, or open up and accept that we will be killing citizens under "acceptable losses"

Skunkleton 6y ago

Per-capita and absolute numbers are both incorrect. What matters is local concentrations. For example, If all of cases were contained to a few metro areas then there would be no problem outside those areas. This would not be reflected in per-capita numbers.

asveikau 6y ago

Well, a lot of people feel, I think accurately, that the lockdowns are what are or were keeping the case load relatively low. Regarding absolute numbers, in the early phase when we had a 2-3 day doubling rate, per capita numbers didn't matter very much because you only needed ~2 days for it to double, so any difference in per capita cases saw that gap closed pretty quickly. So for instance, I saw people downplaying the danger by saying "sure Italy has it bad, but the US has 5x the population". That missed the point a bit. It didn't take that long for the US to become the leader in absolute number of cases, then a bit more for it to exceed per capita rates of Italy. Probably both would have happened sooner had there not been any intervention.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
Sure, but certainly it's a complex enough scenario with enough variables that we should be able to at least have a conversation around what to do without resorting to name calling, yes?
- Spellman 6y ago
  Sure, and many are. Economists, Epidemiologist, and many in the science and political communities are having these conversations. It's just that opening the economy has also become politicized and the armchair social media "experts" have begun chanting "OPEN UP!" without any sort of nuance repeatedly multiple times a day and overwhelming the conversations and suggestions of the reasonable folks with data. So, by default, the initial reaction is assume someone making that suggestion is they're more likely to be an emotional appeal than a rational discussion partner.
  - joshuahughes 6y ago
    > without any sort of nuance I think this accusation is equally applicable for politicians though. There has been precious little nuance in blanket lockdowns that don’t acknowledge how vastly different in risk different activities are (e.g. sunbathing in a park vs clubbing). Seems to me like the shouts of “OPEN UP!” are simply a response to the knee-jerk “SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!” that everyone has had to live with for the last few months.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      Except it's not "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING". It's shut down all non-essential mass gatherings until we can get a handle on the situation. All of the governors who implemented strict shelter-in-place orders have also released detailed plans for re-opening safely.
      - joshuahughes 6y ago
        Where I am (Scotland) it WAS pretty much everything. Only shops selling food, medicine, or maintenance products are allowed to open. All others have been shut for ~2 months now. Driving is strictly forbidden unless you’re travelling to one of these stores that have been ‘deemed essential’. We’re not allowed to meet anyone outside of our household, even in a socially-distanced outside context. I have friends unlucky enough to be living alone and single, and the lockdown is destroying them, to the point that they’re secretly meeting other single friends to stay sane. All of this is in spite of the fact that there are thousands of jobs and activities that can be EASILY done whilst also socially distancing. Of course, it requires vastly more thought and effort to come up with rational guidelines that take into consideration all of this nuance, and governments (mostly because of shortsightedness) haven’t had the time to create more humane lockdown solutions, hence the indiscriminate restrictions that have been brought in by countries the world over.
tomohawk 6y ago
The lockdowns are eroding the legitimacy and respect for authority. Instead of leading the people, the authorities are fighting with them.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  Personally I'd contend that leaders who choose not to take action to protect public health (or even try to deceive their constituents) are eroding the legitimacy and respect for their authority.

badrabbit 6y ago

I was against starting the long term lockdown. I would think they would have mobilized field hospitals care at a national scale as a long term solution, since they say most people will get it no matter what. Absolute numbers are important,those are facts. This isn't a routine disease society has accepted,it can be contained and prevented,per capita does not help guage resource needs. But if you do start a lockdown you can't half-ass it because that would literally be the worst option. The markets are ok because the shutdown is intentional. The markets would not be ok if spending and revenue loss was a result of people being fearful and panicky.the goal know should be a smooth and quick recovery at the right time, not a rough,rushed and messy one.

travisporter 6y ago

No need to compartmentalise. People’s thoughts, sentiments and opinions change (sometimes) based on facts. You’re not belittling this person but you are poking fun the community by saying that it would not accept this opinion.

_jal 6y ago

I'm tired of people pretending they're only "asking questions" when they're pushing for a full reopen. Acting like you're surprised there are unreasonable people saying things and using that to cast anyone who is more cautious as the same is dishonest and cowardly. If someone actually has questions, they should ask them. Otherwise if they don't have the courage to own their political position, I don't consider them part of the conversation.

Spellman 6y ago
This has to be one of my most-hated "tricks." "I don't believe this long video I just posted. But it does make you think." No, I'm pretty sure you believe and are promoting said video. "I'm just asking questions here." No, you clearly have an agenda and opinion and want to bait others who are unsure into a discussion with you. For the rare folks with honest questions, we can have a real explanation. For honest people who want to discuss, we can have a discussion. But being coy and "asking" when you already have a position you won't actually change seems extremely disingenuous.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago

Locking down is the only current viable tactic the US has against C-19. We have: - terrible testing coverage - no contact tracing - massively inefficient healthcare system - massively inefficient supply lines for masks and gloves - insufficient social programs to support the unemployed Either we lock down, mitigate the effects of our already broken systems, or open up and accept that we will be killing citizens under "acceptable losses"