5 ms·

> This is in direct contrast to the advice of the epidemiologists. Reopen the economy later has the effect of saving more lives - at least the lives of those wh

by darawk 6y ago

> This is in direct contrast to the advice of the epidemiologists. Reopen the economy later has the effect of saving more lives - at least the lives of those who wouldn't have otherwise caught coronavirus. I think you are misreading the advice. The advice of epidemiologists was that we need to flatten the curve, to avoid overwhelming our medical system. The absolute number of infections is going to be the same in the end regardless. There's not much we can do about that. There are only two ways to change the absolute number of infections: 1. A vaccine, which is way too long away to wait for. 2. A vigorous and comprehensive test and trace program, which Americans are totally unwilling to accept. This is what has worked in China and Korea.

joeberon 6y ago
The number of deaths is not the same if the curve is flattened
- darawk 6y ago
  I'm aware. I'm in favor of flattening the curve. But we have already flattened the curve. Staying closed now does not serve a curve-flattening purpose. Whether or not you flatten the curve, the absolute number of infections is the same. So what you want to do is keep the infection count at a level just below where it overwhelms your medical system. The goal is not zero infections. The goal is suppressing infections just enough that the medical system can cope, so that the death rate is as low as possible. We have already kept the economy closed long enough that the curve has flattened. We should be slowly reopening it, while monitoring the infection curve so that it doesn't get too steep.
  - orwin 6y ago
    If r0 is kept below one after the lockdown, the absolute number of cases will be kept inferior to a full-blown epidemic as long as you quarantine external cases. We've seen "normal" social distancing (w/o lockdown) keep r0 between .8 and 1. Look at German, French and netherland numbers and their evolution since the reopening and before the reopening. even if we had an average r0 of one, the time needed to reach 60% infected in the nation is superior to 100 000 days (i'm taking a population of 60M to exclude kids and a high average of 300case/day when official numbers put this average closer to 50). We have no idea if natural immunity run that long, and i think everybody hope a vaccine will be found before that. So it's not just flattening the curve, its also preventing infections (unless no vaccine are found and the immunity last forever. But those two should be exclusive)
    - misja111 6y ago
      >> Look at German, French and netherland numbers and their evolution since the reopening and before the reopening. If I look at those, I see that the curve remains flattened after reopening, despite the fact that people are going out more often again. Doesn't this strengthen OP's case against a total economical lockdown?
      - orwin 6y ago
        I am against a total lockdown once the cases are low, and those numbers strengthen my opinion! I was not clear, i was speaking against the idea that lockdown did not save lives. Here is my case: P1: We seems to be able to keep R0 around one (a bit under actually) when everyone is following social distancing. C1: Following P1 if a country have 50 case a day, it will stay at 50 case until a vaccine is found as long as those social distancing rules are followed. C1': Following P1 if a country have around 3000 case a day, it will stay at 3000 cases a day until a vaccine is found as long as those social distancing rules are followed. P2: If natural immunity is achievable, then a vaccine will be found (this is a weak point, i have no argument for that, it is my poor understanding of immunobiology that tell me this as a correct premise, but my confidence index is barely 60%) P2 corollary: If we can't find any vaccine, then no long-term natural immunity exist P3: 50 cases a day is better than 3000 cases a day C2: C1 + P2 Corollary + P3: In any case, having less cases when taking "normal" (aka no-lockdown) social distancing mesure will save lives. This number of cases is arbitrary and will change depending on the population and density of a country. I'm not deciding policies here. I'm just saying that initial lockdown make sense before appropriate measure that will keep R0 low are taken (case tracking, quarantining, social distancing), and that "flatten the curve" is a good slogan but is not only to help the NHS, it will also decrease the number of total cases.
        darawk 6y ago
        I'm not saying that lockdown didn't save lives. I'm saying it's no longer necessary. The purpose of lockdown is to keep the number of infections below the point that they overwhelm the medical system.

by darawk 6y ago

joeberon 6y ago

The number of deaths is not the same if the curve is flattened

darawk 6y ago
I'm aware. I'm in favor of flattening the curve. But we have already flattened the curve. Staying closed now does not serve a curve-flattening purpose. Whether or not you flatten the curve, the absolute number of infections is the same. So what you want to do is keep the infection count at a level just below where it overwhelms your medical system. The goal is not zero infections. The goal is suppressing infections just enough that the medical system can cope, so that the death rate is as low as possible. We have already kept the economy closed long enough that the curve has flattened. We should be slowly reopening it, while monitoring the infection curve so that it doesn't get too steep.
- orwin 6y ago
  If r0 is kept below one after the lockdown, the absolute number of cases will be kept inferior to a full-blown epidemic as long as you quarantine external cases. We've seen "normal" social distancing (w/o lockdown) keep r0 between .8 and 1. Look at German, French and netherland numbers and their evolution since the reopening and before the reopening. even if we had an average r0 of one, the time needed to reach 60% infected in the nation is superior to 100 000 days (i'm taking a population of 60M to exclude kids and a high average of 300case/day when official numbers put this average closer to 50). We have no idea if natural immunity run that long, and i think everybody hope a vaccine will be found before that. So it's not just flattening the curve, its also preventing infections (unless no vaccine are found and the immunity last forever. But those two should be exclusive)
  - misja111 6y ago
    >> Look at German, French and netherland numbers and their evolution since the reopening and before the reopening. If I look at those, I see that the curve remains flattened after reopening, despite the fact that people are going out more often again. Doesn't this strengthen OP's case against a total economical lockdown?
    - orwin 6y ago
      I am against a total lockdown once the cases are low, and those numbers strengthen my opinion! I was not clear, i was speaking against the idea that lockdown did not save lives. Here is my case: P1: We seems to be able to keep R0 around one (a bit under actually) when everyone is following social distancing. C1: Following P1 if a country have 50 case a day, it will stay at 50 case until a vaccine is found as long as those social distancing rules are followed. C1': Following P1 if a country have around 3000 case a day, it will stay at 3000 cases a day until a vaccine is found as long as those social distancing rules are followed. P2: If natural immunity is achievable, then a vaccine will be found (this is a weak point, i have no argument for that, it is my poor understanding of immunobiology that tell me this as a correct premise, but my confidence index is barely 60%) P2 corollary: If we can't find any vaccine, then no long-term natural immunity exist P3: 50 cases a day is better than 3000 cases a day C2: C1 + P2 Corollary + P3: In any case, having less cases when taking "normal" (aka no-lockdown) social distancing mesure will save lives. This number of cases is arbitrary and will change depending on the population and density of a country. I'm not deciding policies here. I'm just saying that initial lockdown make sense before appropriate measure that will keep R0 low are taken (case tracking, quarantining, social distancing), and that "flatten the curve" is a good slogan but is not only to help the NHS, it will also decrease the number of total cases.
      - darawk 6y ago
        I'm not saying that lockdown didn't save lives. I'm saying it's no longer necessary. The purpose of lockdown is to keep the number of infections below the point that they overwhelm the medical system.