3 ms·

I was less worried about it at the beginning - I think I had a decent understanding of how fatal it was, but underestimated how contagious it was. I think I ca

I was less worried about it at the beginning - I think I had a decent understanding of how fatal it was, but underestimated how contagious it was. I think I came around to a mental model of how to react fairly early on, though. The basic model was stay at home until either a vaccine arrives or until we have anti-viral treatments that reduce severity and improve outcomes. Neither has happened, so I'm in the same boat. It's great - great - that the lockdown has reduced occurrences of it so much. And I recognize the argument that if we've tamped down on it enough, that it's safer to go out there. But... an x% less likelihood of catching it doesn't mean it will be x% less severe when you do catch it. I think that a lot of non-technical people are confused on that point. And finally, even if we did have really good contact-tracing... that doesn't help you, it only helps your friends. There are still those two days when people are contagious without being symptomatic. That's just still reality, I don't see a way around that. A healthy people can die from interacting with a seemingly healthy person. Besides, what happened to contact tracing anyway? I thought we were going to have this snazzy contact-tracing tech on our phones and watches by now, courtesy of Apple and Google. I'm sure our contact-tracing is still lousy overall. It's great we have more tests, but we're not at the point where we would have been able to stop February in its tracks. So overall... yeah, I've changed my minds in ways, like recognizing that the probabilities are more on my side than they used to be, so I feel a little safer if I have to go to the doctor/dentist for non-COVID reasons. But other than that, it's still a super-contagious virus that has a decent chance of really screwing up your life even if you aren't 80+, so... I'm still in the "stay at home until treatment/virus improves" camp.

JPKab 6y ago
"The basic model was stay at home until either a vaccine arrives or until we have anti-viral treatments that reduce severity and improve outcomes." Something key about this statement: This was not what the public was initially told. We were told that the lockdown was to flatten the curve while testing was ramped up and to ensure that the rate of infection was slowed to prevent a spike from causing avoidable deaths due to an overwhelmed health care system. It wasn't sold as reduction of the area under the curve. The narrative of staying locked down until a vaccine was developed didn't happen until after the lockdown became a political football. That was a ridiculous notion, based on the typical time to develop vaccines, especially since a coronavirus vaccine has never been developed before for SARs or any others.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  It's not like there was one unified message about this, ever. Yes, it was commonly understood that preventing "avoidable" deaths from stressed hospitals was a sufficient reason to lock down, but that doesn't mean that it was unanimous that it was the only reason. From the beginning, if you ask ten people what "people are saying", you'll get ten different answers. My own impression of what the public was initially told does not match up to yours.

JPKab 6y ago

"The basic model was stay at home until either a vaccine arrives or until we have anti-viral treatments that reduce severity and improve outcomes." Something key about this statement: This was not what the public was initially told. We were told that the lockdown was to flatten the curve while testing was ramped up and to ensure that the rate of infection was slowed to prevent a spike from causing avoidable deaths due to an overwhelmed health care system. It wasn't sold as reduction of the area under the curve. The narrative of staying locked down until a vaccine was developed didn't happen until after the lockdown became a political football. That was a ridiculous notion, based on the typical time to develop vaccines, especially since a coronavirus vaccine has never been developed before for SARs or any others.

tunesmith 6y ago
It's not like there was one unified message about this, ever. Yes, it was commonly understood that preventing "avoidable" deaths from stressed hospitals was a sufficient reason to lock down, but that doesn't mean that it was unanimous that it was the only reason. From the beginning, if you ask ten people what "people are saying", you'll get ten different answers. My own impression of what the public was initially told does not match up to yours.