6 ms·

Flatten the curve was meant to spread the infections across time to decrease stress on the healthcare system. Our lockdown was ineffectual because of lax enforc

Flatten the curve was meant to spread the infections across time to decrease stress on the healthcare system. Our lockdown was ineffectual because of lax enforcement and the public's apathy. So it achieved none of its goals. Places like Italy, Spain, New Zealand have "won" against the virus using lockdowns and are now on track to be back to normal. In NZs case they are already back to normal. Without another lockdown it's almost assured at this point that we will reach the breaking point of our healthcare system. It's inevitable unless a miracle vaccine arrives very soon.

rlt 6y ago
But... we did flatten the curve enough to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system. To suggest it wasn't enough now is moving the goalposts.
- mnm1 6y ago
  To revise science and drop ideas not proven to work while adopting ideas proven to work can also be called "changing the goalposts" by people who simply don't understand how science works.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - JungleGymSam 6y ago
    I, for one, welcome our science-understanding overlords.
  - thrown2020 6y ago
    you are fucking stupid
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > But... we did flatten the curve enough to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system Well, the curve had somewhat flattened (but was still trending upward among the noise) before reaching the point of overwhelming the system before we started reopening and it unflattened. I think it was premature to say that it had been flattened enough to avoid rather than delay that outcome, though it's kind of immaterial anyway since we abandoned the effort to keep it flat and are heading straight for overwhelming the system.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Hospitals are starting to reach capacity in Tucson and Dallas right now.
- devalgo 6y ago
  And the curve is now going straight back up at exponential rates. The lockdown should have lasted until we had a vaccine. Period.
  - rlt 6y ago
    "Period"? It's unknown how long a vaccine will take, or how effective it will even be. Prolonged lockdowns have costs too, it's just not politically correct to compare them to peoples' lives so people like to ignore them.
  - T-hawk 6y ago
    18 months is the rough expectation of the timeline for applying a vaccine to everybody. Can people really go 18 months with no employment? Can students miss 18 months of schooling? Can people go 18 months without other medical care? Can housing go 18 months without upkeep because the landlords have no money since they can't evict rent nonpayers? A lockdown that extended is not feasible, even before you get to any discretionary economic activity.
  - icelancer 6y ago
    Ah yes, a member of the Zoom/Slack WFH class who is not impacted economically whatsoever by a 12-18 month lockdown.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      The pandemic and the government’s poor response caused the lockdowns, not white collar workers.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      The economic impact began before the lockdown occurred. To imply that we can just reopen society by declaring the lockdown over is to be a bit naive about how people react to risk.
    - devalgo 6y ago
      Ah yes a member of the "Sacrifice your grandparents for the stonks" class. I'm sorry but the idea of discarding potentially millions of live for the economy is inhuman.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  A building catches fire, the fire department starts spraying down the surrounding buildings causing water damage but keeping them from also catching fire. Everyone is ok with this trade off, the reason we are allowing the water damage is to avoid the building burning down. The fire department started doing this when the building fire next door was on the first floor but threatened the rest of the building. The fire department was able to get that room where the fire started mostly put out, there's still a little bit of fire in the hallway, and they start putting the hoses away. "There's much less fire than when we started, and people were getting really angry about the water damage to the surrounding buildings. We are all done here!" Would you be happy about this situation, wouldn't you point out that even if there is less fire, nothing else has changed about the situation. Fire still spreads, it can still catch the building on fire, and that fire could still spread to the surrounding buildings. The problem isn't over yet, and if the whole point of suffering the water damage was that my building wouldn't burn down, well now I have water damage and it might still burn down.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
nepthar 6y ago
> Without another lockdown it's almost assured at this point that we will reach the breaking point of our healthcare system. It's inevitable unless a miracle vaccine arrives very soon. What sources of information lead you to this conclusion?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  LA County is reportedly 2-4 weeks from hitting capacity, lots of other smaller places are closer, and hospitalizations are trailing enough that even an immediate return to lockdown (aside from compliance issues, which after reopening are going to be significant) won't stop some places from being overwhelmed, but reopening continues to progress.
- devalgo 6y ago
  Uh Math? You have unconstrained exponential growth across the country in most major cities outside the Northeast. There is only 1 ending here unless there are massive changes.

rlt 6y ago

But... we did flatten the curve enough to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system. To suggest it wasn't enough now is moving the goalposts.

mnm1 6y ago
To revise science and drop ideas not proven to work while adopting ideas proven to work can also be called "changing the goalposts" by people who simply don't understand how science works.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- JungleGymSam 6y ago
  I, for one, welcome our science-understanding overlords.
- thrown2020 6y ago
  you are fucking stupid
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But... we did flatten the curve enough to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system Well, the curve had somewhat flattened (but was still trending upward among the noise) before reaching the point of overwhelming the system before we started reopening and it unflattened. I think it was premature to say that it had been flattened enough to avoid rather than delay that outcome, though it's kind of immaterial anyway since we abandoned the effort to keep it flat and are heading straight for overwhelming the system.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Hospitals are starting to reach capacity in Tucson and Dallas right now.
devalgo 6y ago
And the curve is now going straight back up at exponential rates. The lockdown should have lasted until we had a vaccine. Period.
- rlt 6y ago
  "Period"? It's unknown how long a vaccine will take, or how effective it will even be. Prolonged lockdowns have costs too, it's just not politically correct to compare them to peoples' lives so people like to ignore them.
- T-hawk 6y ago
  18 months is the rough expectation of the timeline for applying a vaccine to everybody. Can people really go 18 months with no employment? Can students miss 18 months of schooling? Can people go 18 months without other medical care? Can housing go 18 months without upkeep because the landlords have no money since they can't evict rent nonpayers? A lockdown that extended is not feasible, even before you get to any discretionary economic activity.
- icelancer 6y ago
  Ah yes, a member of the Zoom/Slack WFH class who is not impacted economically whatsoever by a 12-18 month lockdown.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    The pandemic and the government’s poor response caused the lockdowns, not white collar workers.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    The economic impact began before the lockdown occurred. To imply that we can just reopen society by declaring the lockdown over is to be a bit naive about how people react to risk.
  - devalgo 6y ago
    Ah yes a member of the "Sacrifice your grandparents for the stonks" class. I'm sorry but the idea of discarding potentially millions of live for the economy is inhuman.
ihumanable 6y ago
A building catches fire, the fire department starts spraying down the surrounding buildings causing water damage but keeping them from also catching fire. Everyone is ok with this trade off, the reason we are allowing the water damage is to avoid the building burning down. The fire department started doing this when the building fire next door was on the first floor but threatened the rest of the building. The fire department was able to get that room where the fire started mostly put out, there's still a little bit of fire in the hallway, and they start putting the hoses away. "There's much less fire than when we started, and people were getting really angry about the water damage to the surrounding buildings. We are all done here!" Would you be happy about this situation, wouldn't you point out that even if there is less fire, nothing else has changed about the situation. Fire still spreads, it can still catch the building on fire, and that fire could still spread to the surrounding buildings. The problem isn't over yet, and if the whole point of suffering the water damage was that my building wouldn't burn down, well now I have water damage and it might still burn down.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nepthar 6y ago

> Without another lockdown it's almost assured at this point that we will reach the breaking point of our healthcare system. It's inevitable unless a miracle vaccine arrives very soon. What sources of information lead you to this conclusion?

dragonwriter 6y ago
LA County is reportedly 2-4 weeks from hitting capacity, lots of other smaller places are closer, and hospitalizations are trailing enough that even an immediate return to lockdown (aside from compliance issues, which after reopening are going to be significant) won't stop some places from being overwhelmed, but reopening continues to progress.
devalgo 6y ago
Uh Math? You have unconstrained exponential growth across the country in most major cities outside the Northeast. There is only 1 ending here unless there are massive changes.