4 ms·

The major flaw in your argument is focusing on an official quarantine order. In practice it seems many of the places you mention have an informal quarantine in

by entee 6y ago

The major flaw in your argument is focusing on an official quarantine order. In practice it seems many of the places you mention have an informal quarantine in place. In Florida Miami-Dade county did have a lockdown though the broader state didn’t. It’s also the densest, so most at risk. Nursing homes also took steps way beyond the government order and well before the order. There’s also tons of evidence that people did not adopt initially and are not returning to normal behavior. For example even in Sweden restaurant attendance was down massively even in the absence of an official ban. You may be right that a more localized or targeted response has almost the same effect as a full lockdown. (Though things are still decidedly not great in Sweden concerning the death rate). But people are taking massive measures even in non-locked down areas, it’s improper to compare that to the status quo ante.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
If there wasn't a lock down in Florida like you say and no hospitals were overwhelmed and no exponential explosion of cases happened.... Then that's all the evidence you need to know that flattening the curve was a myth and quarantine was an ineffective solution. (the same effect happened in Sweden by the way) I bet you based on these data points that every region that opens it's economy will have the same result. Steady state of cases, no second wave. Quarantine was pointless. A lot of lives were ruined by the flat curve proponents...for nothing.
- entee 6y ago
  That’s actually not what I said. I’m saying there were lockdowns in the most important regions (Miami-Dade for example), that people behaved as though there were lockdowns in at risk areas (nursing homes), and that people are still behaving with lockdown-style precautions. All of these things produced a flatter curve, and have also to a certain extent done so in Sweden where people followed many (not all) lockdown precautions without official government decree. Just because the government didn’t say things were locked down doesn’t mean they weren’t in practice. Look at Sweden’s GDP losses, restaurant attendance, movie attendance, you’ll find they haven’t avoided massive economic damage. In exchange they also have a pretty high death rate. These things are complicated, but it’s pretty clear lockdown behavior cuts infection spread. It’s also pretty clear people are terrified of getting sick, so they’ll adopt the behavior to a certain degree regardless of decree. This means issuing a decree or not doesn’t make you avoid economic pain, but a decree might make it easier to guide the right actions and give pretext to minimize economic pain via external support.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    "it’s pretty clear lockdown behavior cuts infection spread." It's not clear at all...as basic social distancing is appearing to have the exact same effect as lockdown.

by entee 6y ago

nickthemagicman 6y ago

If there wasn't a lock down in Florida like you say and no hospitals were overwhelmed and no exponential explosion of cases happened.... Then that's all the evidence you need to know that flattening the curve was a myth and quarantine was an ineffective solution. (the same effect happened in Sweden by the way) I bet you based on these data points that every region that opens it's economy will have the same result. Steady state of cases, no second wave. Quarantine was pointless. A lot of lives were ruined by the flat curve proponents...for nothing.

entee 6y ago
That’s actually not what I said. I’m saying there were lockdowns in the most important regions (Miami-Dade for example), that people behaved as though there were lockdowns in at risk areas (nursing homes), and that people are still behaving with lockdown-style precautions. All of these things produced a flatter curve, and have also to a certain extent done so in Sweden where people followed many (not all) lockdown precautions without official government decree. Just because the government didn’t say things were locked down doesn’t mean they weren’t in practice. Look at Sweden’s GDP losses, restaurant attendance, movie attendance, you’ll find they haven’t avoided massive economic damage. In exchange they also have a pretty high death rate. These things are complicated, but it’s pretty clear lockdown behavior cuts infection spread. It’s also pretty clear people are terrified of getting sick, so they’ll adopt the behavior to a certain degree regardless of decree. This means issuing a decree or not doesn’t make you avoid economic pain, but a decree might make it easier to guide the right actions and give pretext to minimize economic pain via external support.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  "it’s pretty clear lockdown behavior cuts infection spread." It's not clear at all...as basic social distancing is appearing to have the exact same effect as lockdown.