4 ms·

>> 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 rem

>> 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.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    That’s the purpose in aggregate. On an individual level, it’s ideal to not catch the coronavirus at all, and to get the vaccine when it is available. The lockdown is the most effective way to achieve those individual results, and save those individual lives, at the highest levels. The benefits of the lockdown to the individual and to society are not mutually exclusive, so why focus on flattening the curve only?

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.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  That’s the purpose in aggregate. On an individual level, it’s ideal to not catch the coronavirus at all, and to get the vaccine when it is available. The lockdown is the most effective way to achieve those individual results, and save those individual lives, at the highest levels. The benefits of the lockdown to the individual and to society are not mutually exclusive, so why focus on flattening the curve only?