4 ms·

It’s very sad to me to see us destroying ourselves over covid19 without asking ourselves critically and honestly “are these steps and precautions worth it?” I

It’s very sad to me to see us destroying ourselves over covid19 without asking ourselves critically and honestly “are these steps and precautions worth it?” I can see shelter-at-home related suicide, which disproportionately affects the young, overtaking covid19 deaths in some places. Not to mention the dramatic and permanent change to our way of life. Here’s a commonly circulating story about doctors saying they’re seeing more suicide and suicide attempts in 4 weeks than they usually see in a year[1]. When will it stop with 25% on unemployment? How many people right now are quietly becoming alcoholics alone in their own homes? Unfortunately the stay-at-home order has become yet another flashpoint in the modern day culture wars, with people using an opinion on it to signal tribe membership and so on. This blinds us from our duty to think critically on the steps we’re taking. https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-during-pandemic-death-by/6201962/ https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-duri...

tinyhouse 6y ago
The problem is that lockdown is the much safer option to any leader. They prefer not to be accused of killing people due to not executing a lockdown. Esp given that covid-19 deaths are reported every day while lockdown related abuse/deaths/etc are not. The latter is much harder to quantify.
HappySweeney 6y ago
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States), there were 45k suicides in 2016. The suicide rate would have to near triple in order for your prediction to come about. I'm no expert in this field, but it doesn't seem plausible.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Changed my post to “some places”. Suicide has a strong and well studied correlation to unemployment, and with 25% unemployment in the US right now (with no signs of letting up) it’s going to have a profound affect for years to come.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> are these steps and precautions worth it? What I find most concerning is that, even if you allow that the answer might be yes, just asking the question in the first place ends up in immediate dismissal.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Especially considering how lockdown is draconian and medieval. It's a huge cost to pay for uncertain benefits. We're talking about ending people's livelihoods and violating their rights without definitive, positive scientific evidence that lockdown is effective. It's pretty clear by now that it's safe to venture outside while practicing social distancing and wearing a mask - at the very least for working-age people. It also makes sense how this has become politicized. All the elements are there too: mask-wearing and lockdown is such a juicy virtue signal. Anyone that dares to venture outside is some cretin, a murderer.
- myk9001 6y ago
  I noticed this too. People in favor of lockdowns keep saying they're following science. But once someone dares to ask questions, so many act as if their religious feelings were insulted. To be fair, from what I've seen on HN, the community here is quite open to reasonable discussion.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    Lockdown is a draconian political mandate justified and defended on the basis of virtue. It really hasn't been a matter of science because so far it couldn't be: there's far too many unknowns and inaccuracies in the measurements we're making, they're changing all the time. From the beginning, authorities have been scrambling to appear competent and failing catastrophically. There are major political ramifications of lockdown and other actions of leaders. They will not readily admit failure and neither will those convinced of the virtue of these measures - it's a matter of political identity now.
Frost1x 6y ago
Complex situations like these outbreaks are ripe with unknowns and varying degrees of ambiguity to play into. The event is so recent the data isn't great, early (and likely current data) was/is flawed, the event is still active, etc. There are so many independent and dependent variables intertwined that drawing base conclusions on certain useful actions regarding side effects is incredibly challenging from a modeling or even data collection perspective. As always, people jump into these gaping unknowns with predispositions and start drawing up conclusions they like fleshed out to strengthen personal agendas. Some are more articulate or exploitative of these situations than others, so their arguments are better/more widely received. "We should lockdown because X, for all these potentially viable arguments in a blackhole of ambiguity. Oh, and BTW, the lockdown has improved my life." Or, "we should not lockdown because Y, for all these potentially viable arguments. BTW, the lockdown has hindered my livelihood." A lot of the data is so early we're still guessing either way. The one clear (and frankly obvious) controlled variable is that social distancing effectively limits the spread of the disease. Now as to the side effects, we're just getting largely preliminary data. I think we should still explore these issues but we need to be clear what our agendas are and be careful linking this pandemic to strengthen our agendas.

tinyhouse 6y ago

The problem is that lockdown is the much safer option to any leader. They prefer not to be accused of killing people due to not executing a lockdown. Esp given that covid-19 deaths are reported every day while lockdown related abuse/deaths/etc are not. The latter is much harder to quantify.

HappySweeney 6y ago

According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States), there were 45k suicides in 2016. The suicide rate would have to near triple in order for your prediction to come about. I'm no expert in this field, but it doesn't seem plausible.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Changed my post to “some places”. Suicide has a strong and well studied correlation to unemployment, and with 25% unemployment in the US right now (with no signs of letting up) it’s going to have a profound affect for years to come.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> are these steps and precautions worth it? What I find most concerning is that, even if you allow that the answer might be yes, just asking the question in the first place ends up in immediate dismissal.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Especially considering how lockdown is draconian and medieval. It's a huge cost to pay for uncertain benefits. We're talking about ending people's livelihoods and violating their rights without definitive, positive scientific evidence that lockdown is effective. It's pretty clear by now that it's safe to venture outside while practicing social distancing and wearing a mask - at the very least for working-age people. It also makes sense how this has become politicized. All the elements are there too: mask-wearing and lockdown is such a juicy virtue signal. Anyone that dares to venture outside is some cretin, a murderer.
myk9001 6y ago
I noticed this too. People in favor of lockdowns keep saying they're following science. But once someone dares to ask questions, so many act as if their religious feelings were insulted. To be fair, from what I've seen on HN, the community here is quite open to reasonable discussion.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Lockdown is a draconian political mandate justified and defended on the basis of virtue. It really hasn't been a matter of science because so far it couldn't be: there's far too many unknowns and inaccuracies in the measurements we're making, they're changing all the time. From the beginning, authorities have been scrambling to appear competent and failing catastrophically. There are major political ramifications of lockdown and other actions of leaders. They will not readily admit failure and neither will those convinced of the virtue of these measures - it's a matter of political identity now.

Frost1x 6y ago

Complex situations like these outbreaks are ripe with unknowns and varying degrees of ambiguity to play into. The event is so recent the data isn't great, early (and likely current data) was/is flawed, the event is still active, etc. There are so many independent and dependent variables intertwined that drawing base conclusions on certain useful actions regarding side effects is incredibly challenging from a modeling or even data collection perspective. As always, people jump into these gaping unknowns with predispositions and start drawing up conclusions they like fleshed out to strengthen personal agendas. Some are more articulate or exploitative of these situations than others, so their arguments are better/more widely received. "We should lockdown because X, for all these potentially viable arguments in a blackhole of ambiguity. Oh, and BTW, the lockdown has improved my life." Or, "we should not lockdown because Y, for all these potentially viable arguments. BTW, the lockdown has hindered my livelihood." A lot of the data is so early we're still guessing either way. The one clear (and frankly obvious) controlled variable is that social distancing effectively limits the spread of the disease. Now as to the side effects, we're just getting largely preliminary data. I think we should still explore these issues but we need to be clear what our agendas are and be careful linking this pandemic to strengthen our agendas.