3 ms·

The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelme

The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. Of course cases will increase when people leave their homes. But have the hospitals been overwhelmed in any of the states that started to reopen several weeks ago? No! In that case the lockdowns have served their purpose. The authors of this article are arguing more from a pro-lockdown position than from an anti-virus position — they seem to care more about defending the lockdowns than they do about actually solving the problem, even though it’s becoming obvious that new solutions, like partial reopening, are working.

rabidrat 6y ago
In addition to preventing hospitals being overwhelmed, the lockdowns were intended to give us time to develop the infrastructure for adequate testing, tracing, and supportive isolation. With those things in place, we can re-open and still keep the virus in check. If we don't have those things in place, the problem is not the re-opening, which was inevitable since indefinite lockdown and isolation is not sustainable anyway.
- vharuck 6y ago
  This is why I hold the "discordant" opinions that we should reopen the economy (with reasonable caveats like 6 feet distances, masks, and outside dining when possible), but am still staying inside myself like the past 3 months. I'm going to do my small part in not being a vector. But there's no way the US is ever reaching New Zealand's success at discovery, tracing, and isolating before a vaccine's available. The virus is still an awful pandemic and will have major consequences, but we have no good choices anymore.
  - nikofeyn 6y ago
    > The virus is still an awful pandemic and will have major consequences, but we have no good choices anymore. this is what is unbelievably frustrating. most people in the u.s. basically hold the opinion that everything wasn't so bad, and that things came out okay. meanwhile, most of the numbers point to the u.s. being one of the worst managed countries with respect to the virus. it's really sickening there is this dissonance with people. i don't feel safe in the u.s. and will be staying away from people as long as possible. it just feels sickening though, because that length will be indefinite in the u.s. until a vaccine arrives.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  this seems like retcon. I never heard it before now, and there's not been agreement on the method or role of contact tracing in a free society. Am I going to be quarantined if some app says I got near a person who tested positive? That seems ludicrous. States are reopening without tracing or supportive isolation.
  - rabidrat 6y ago
    No, but you should self-isolate. And if you test positive, people you came into contact with should be notified. And this isn't a retcon. I got TTSI from vihart's video which was based on this work published in April: https://ethics.harvard.edu/covid-roadmap https://ethics.harvard.edu/covid-roadmap
graeme 6y ago
> The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. Lots of areas have actually mostly eliminated the virus, just not the USA and Europe. Avoiding hospital overwhelm is avoiding the worst case. But if that’s all you do then life is still heavily abnormal until a vaccine.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nikofeyn 6y ago
> The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. i think you've lost sight of what flattening the curve was about. flattening the curve, from the beginning, was giving up. it was about accepting that we weren't and still aren't prepared for the virus, and that tons of people would get sick and die. at the moment, the deaths is a rather sickening 100,000+. the "flattening the curve" movement was an acceptance of this and was just meant to spread out the sick and deaths over time. meanwhile, other countries successfully managed the virus where they didn't even have to flatten the curve. they squashed it. because then, in the end, the fact that the u.s. flattened the curve could be seen as a successful handling of the virus, when it was anything but. it is still a legitimate threat in the u.s., while other countries came out of lockdown much, much sooner with much less cases and deaths.
starky 6y ago
Flattening the curve is just stage 1 of dealing with the virus. Yes you start to re-open in stage 2, but you do it carefully and while maintaining much of the social distancing and having effective contact tracing in place to control any outbreaks, this is how other countries have opened up. Does the US have the required infrastructure in place to support the actions taken in other countries that have been effective? Ideally you get the virus to low enough levels where you coast along until we get effective treatment or a vaccine with a new normal that disrupts the economy and daily life as little as possible.

rabidrat 6y ago

In addition to preventing hospitals being overwhelmed, the lockdowns were intended to give us time to develop the infrastructure for adequate testing, tracing, and supportive isolation. With those things in place, we can re-open and still keep the virus in check. If we don't have those things in place, the problem is not the re-opening, which was inevitable since indefinite lockdown and isolation is not sustainable anyway.

vharuck 6y ago
This is why I hold the "discordant" opinions that we should reopen the economy (with reasonable caveats like 6 feet distances, masks, and outside dining when possible), but am still staying inside myself like the past 3 months. I'm going to do my small part in not being a vector. But there's no way the US is ever reaching New Zealand's success at discovery, tracing, and isolating before a vaccine's available. The virus is still an awful pandemic and will have major consequences, but we have no good choices anymore.
- nikofeyn 6y ago
  > The virus is still an awful pandemic and will have major consequences, but we have no good choices anymore. this is what is unbelievably frustrating. most people in the u.s. basically hold the opinion that everything wasn't so bad, and that things came out okay. meanwhile, most of the numbers point to the u.s. being one of the worst managed countries with respect to the virus. it's really sickening there is this dissonance with people. i don't feel safe in the u.s. and will be staying away from people as long as possible. it just feels sickening though, because that length will be indefinite in the u.s. until a vaccine arrives.
bagacrap 6y ago
this seems like retcon. I never heard it before now, and there's not been agreement on the method or role of contact tracing in a free society. Am I going to be quarantined if some app says I got near a person who tested positive? That seems ludicrous. States are reopening without tracing or supportive isolation.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  No, but you should self-isolate. And if you test positive, people you came into contact with should be notified. And this isn't a retcon. I got TTSI from vihart's video which was based on this work published in April: https://ethics.harvard.edu/covid-roadmap https://ethics.harvard.edu/covid-roadmap

graeme 6y ago

> The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. Lots of areas have actually mostly eliminated the virus, just not the USA and Europe. Avoiding hospital overwhelm is avoiding the worst case. But if that’s all you do then life is still heavily abnormal until a vaccine.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nikofeyn 6y ago

> The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. i think you've lost sight of what flattening the curve was about. flattening the curve, from the beginning, was giving up. it was about accepting that we weren't and still aren't prepared for the virus, and that tons of people would get sick and die. at the moment, the deaths is a rather sickening 100,000+. the "flattening the curve" movement was an acceptance of this and was just meant to spread out the sick and deaths over time. meanwhile, other countries successfully managed the virus where they didn't even have to flatten the curve. they squashed it. because then, in the end, the fact that the u.s. flattened the curve could be seen as a successful handling of the virus, when it was anything but. it is still a legitimate threat in the u.s., while other countries came out of lockdown much, much sooner with much less cases and deaths.

starky 6y ago

Flattening the curve is just stage 1 of dealing with the virus. Yes you start to re-open in stage 2, but you do it carefully and while maintaining much of the social distancing and having effective contact tracing in place to control any outbreaks, this is how other countries have opened up. Does the US have the required infrastructure in place to support the actions taken in other countries that have been effective? Ideally you get the virus to low enough levels where you coast along until we get effective treatment or a vaccine with a new normal that disrupts the economy and daily life as little as possible.