7 ms·

Back when this started I made the claim that the long term consequences of lock down would exceed the short term benefits . Depression, Drugs overdose, murder

Back when this started I made the claim that the long term consequences of lock down would exceed the short term benefits . Depression, Drugs overdose, murder (despair), Suicide, extra sedentary issues leading to diabetese/CVD, loss of jobs/meaning et al. I havent seen anyone do the math of the uptick there to talk about the marginal benefit of lockdown or the fact that this, once again, is a form of biased benefit for the elderly at the expense of the younger (elderly more likely to die, younger more likely to suffer harder from lockdown)

toiletfuneral 6y ago
my partner is a nurse so I just want to say fuck you
- chrisco255 6y ago
  https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/16/874198026/the-cost-of-thailands-coronavirus-success-despair-and-suicide https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/16/8741980... Look at the high cost of these lockdowns. Hundreds of millions jobless, poverty rising worldwide. Suicides and overdoses skyrocketing. There is a real trade-off and cost to these lockdowns that need to be considered.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    What about the benefit of a limited time two month shutdown a la New Zealand ? With a national coherent strategy for testing, contact tracing, travel restrictions with enforced quarantines, establishment of green zones We neither got a lockdown or a herd immunity strategy, everyone fending off for themselves
chrisco255 6y ago
Not to mention long term economic consequences of permanently (not sure how much of this social distancing thing will last after the pandemic is over) altering human connectivity. 15-25% unemployment in most developed economies right now. A lot of the activities people get enjoyment out of (dancing, concerts, church, school, etc) are completely shut down.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
There are medical consequences to the lockdown also. Things like all the cancer screenings that didn't happen because people weren't going to the doctor. And the people who died from heart attacks because they were afraid to go to the ER.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Those aren't consequences of the lockdown they're consequences of a pandemic.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Of the two examples I gave you, I can agree on one. People afraid to go to the ER could be considered a consequence of the pandemic - the lockdown doesn't say "Don't go to the ER if you need to". But lockdown did say "Don't make unnecessary trips to anywhere, not even the grocery store." Many of us interpreted that as avoiding unnecessary trips to the doctor also, which is why I for one have not had an annual physical so far this year.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      "Don't make unnecessary trips" isn't the same as "don't see your doctor for necessary medical intervention". Call your doctor, find out what they recommend, and/or use Teledoc. Regardless, if there was no lockdown, and medical systems were overwhelmed, like in New York, would you have been able to see your doctor then? Would you have wanted to go to an overcrowded ER or Urgent Care and wait for hours surrounded by infected patients?
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        In many states, they quite literally outlawed elective surgery, even where there wasn't a patient overload. And in some cases "elective" surgery are things like blood transfusions for leukemia. And then you also get late diagnosis of deadlier diseases like heart disease and lung cancer because people are afraid to go to the hospital. I suspect the waiting room issue could be solved by queuing people up electronically and texting when they're ready to see you, while you wait in the car outside, to minimize exposure to other sick patients.
victorhooi 6y ago
I hear these sorts of sentiments from the USA a lot - where apparently people are actively rioting and protesting against the health lockdown. I'm from Australia - where while we've had some grumblings about the health measures, on the whole, we've been pretty lucky. Our death toll is 104 people - which even though (comparative) low is still a tragedy. Yet the USA death toll is over 130,000 people - that is a terrible thing =(. I do not get how the USA can be so blase about it. And that is with measures in place (although I'm sure there are breaches). Imagine if you simply let it run rampant, and let the health system get overhwelmed? (See Italy). It does seem like its overwhelming the young who are very laid back about COVID-19, and chaff the most at restrictions. To be frank - that seems very selfish. Imagine if the virus had a 30% mortality rate in your cohort? You'd be terrified. (I'm young, with two young kids under 5. My parents refused to see me or our kids for a couple of months, out of fear they might catch it from us - I missed them as did their grandkids, but I understand why - it must have been scary for them). And even that aside - have you considered that a lot of the economic downturn isn't from the actual health measures in place - but from the uncertainty, doubt and fear caused by a virus pandemic? People are scared, and that's naturally going to curb some spending. We are a interlinked global economy, and you cannot escape that. I hope that we'll have a vaccine soon, so we can go back to normal - but in lieu of that, trying to stamp out the virus or contain it isn't a bad goal.
- 1996 6y ago
  > To be frank - that seems very selfish. No, it seems logical: if the elderly are at risk, by all means, let them shelter at home and give them money without destroying the economy (as the elderly as less likely to be employed). Even better, for old people who need to work, give them full pay every week, and just ask them in return to stay at home and use uber eats. But we didn't do that. Too bad: it would still have saved a lot of money (and the actual economy) > I hope that we'll have a vaccine soon I will be generous enough to not claim my dose, to let you and others test it first, to make sure there are no autoimmune diseases or other bad things it can trigger
  - monocasa 6y ago
    My 38 yo healthy coworker died from it. It's not just the elderly at risk.
victorhooi 6y ago
Also - I should mention - it's the job of governments to guide their people through these sorts of pandemics, natural disasters etc. This is why government are engaging in stimulus spending, or increasing their social support programs. This is why they exist.
nostromo 6y ago
WHO has predicted hundreds of millions of people will risk starvation this year due to the economic ramifications of lockdowns. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pandemic-could-mean-260-million-people-worldwide-marching-toward-starvation https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pandemic-could-mean-260-mi...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gdubs 6y ago
  The lockdowns? The linked interview doesn’t mention lockdowns once — it talks about the effect of the pandemic. They go even further to say that it’s not so much money that’s the concern right now — it’s the supply chain. Critical, essential services aren’t being shutdown with lockdowns. They’re being shutdown because people are getting sick — like the food processing plants in the US, where people work in very close proximity to each other, indoors, all day long.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    Seeing a lot of comments doing the pandemic <—-> lockdown switch We are in lockdown because of the pandemic. Half the people don’t care, the other half don’t want to get it - the economy is affected until those percentages budge
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      That depends on what you mean by "because of". The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians.
      - foogazi 6y ago
        > That depends on what you mean by "because of". A direct response to the global covid pandemic > The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians. Do you think there was another reason for the lockdown besides slowing down infections?
ianleeclark 6y ago
> Back when this started I made the claim that the long term consequences of lock down would exceed the short term benefits . And yet the USA will both have their cake and eat it too. You get both the full brunt of the virus alongside economic collapse. Instead of discussing the very real results of a demand collapse and how to address that, we get borderline eugenics posts attempting to throw more meat back into the grinder. Its all so incredibly abstract, these lives you want to sacrifice at your local Applebee's. But, hey, you're just worried about the long-term results--you're the caring one here. Those of us who want lockdown, were the ones causing the harm. Not the lack of a safety net, not the collapse of consensus, not the completely incompetent response, and never the fact that the copper has been so thoroughly stripped from the global supply chains that you couldn't even get enough masks into the country with a several months headstart.
qntty 6y ago
There are two problems with this. The first is that it's impossible to know what the consequences of a lockdown are, because in all likelihood, many people would be staying home and losing jobs without a "lockdown" because people would still be afraid to go anywhere. The second problem is that the consequences that we're seeing in the USA aren't exactly the "consequences of a lockdown", they're the consequences of a half-ass lockdown that didn't decrease the numbers like they did in other countries. Both because of non-compliance of people and state/local government, and because of a broken healthcare system. You can't really blame that on the lockdown.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  We should really stop even calling it a “lockdown.” What an exaggeration! Nobody’s locked into their homes. States issued these half-assed “Stay At Home orders” which were largely ignored. They might as well have been called Stay At Home suggestions. Around me, you couldn’t even tell there was a worldwide deadly pandemic: everyone is out horsing around and stores and restaurants are packed—no masks. The USA never had a lockdown which is why this is turning into a sustained disaster.
akvadrako 6y ago
Some people have down the math and it's pretty clear the lockdown will destroy more years of life then it can possibly save: https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_life_destroyed_saved https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_li...

toiletfuneral 6y ago

my partner is a nurse so I just want to say fuck you

chrisco255 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/16/874198026/the-cost-of-thailands-coronavirus-success-despair-and-suicide https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/16/8741980... Look at the high cost of these lockdowns. Hundreds of millions jobless, poverty rising worldwide. Suicides and overdoses skyrocketing. There is a real trade-off and cost to these lockdowns that need to be considered.
- foogazi 6y ago
  What about the benefit of a limited time two month shutdown a la New Zealand ? With a national coherent strategy for testing, contact tracing, travel restrictions with enforced quarantines, establishment of green zones We neither got a lockdown or a herd immunity strategy, everyone fending off for themselves

chrisco255 6y ago

Not to mention long term economic consequences of permanently (not sure how much of this social distancing thing will last after the pandemic is over) altering human connectivity. 15-25% unemployment in most developed economies right now. A lot of the activities people get enjoyment out of (dancing, concerts, church, school, etc) are completely shut down.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

There are medical consequences to the lockdown also. Things like all the cancer screenings that didn't happen because people weren't going to the doctor. And the people who died from heart attacks because they were afraid to go to the ER.

Klinky 6y ago
Those aren't consequences of the lockdown they're consequences of a pandemic.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Of the two examples I gave you, I can agree on one. People afraid to go to the ER could be considered a consequence of the pandemic - the lockdown doesn't say "Don't go to the ER if you need to". But lockdown did say "Don't make unnecessary trips to anywhere, not even the grocery store." Many of us interpreted that as avoiding unnecessary trips to the doctor also, which is why I for one have not had an annual physical so far this year.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    "Don't make unnecessary trips" isn't the same as "don't see your doctor for necessary medical intervention". Call your doctor, find out what they recommend, and/or use Teledoc. Regardless, if there was no lockdown, and medical systems were overwhelmed, like in New York, would you have been able to see your doctor then? Would you have wanted to go to an overcrowded ER or Urgent Care and wait for hours surrounded by infected patients?
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      In many states, they quite literally outlawed elective surgery, even where there wasn't a patient overload. And in some cases "elective" surgery are things like blood transfusions for leukemia. And then you also get late diagnosis of deadlier diseases like heart disease and lung cancer because people are afraid to go to the hospital. I suspect the waiting room issue could be solved by queuing people up electronically and texting when they're ready to see you, while you wait in the car outside, to minimize exposure to other sick patients.

victorhooi 6y ago

I hear these sorts of sentiments from the USA a lot - where apparently people are actively rioting and protesting against the health lockdown. I'm from Australia - where while we've had some grumblings about the health measures, on the whole, we've been pretty lucky. Our death toll is 104 people - which even though (comparative) low is still a tragedy. Yet the USA death toll is over 130,000 people - that is a terrible thing =(. I do not get how the USA can be so blase about it. And that is with measures in place (although I'm sure there are breaches). Imagine if you simply let it run rampant, and let the health system get overhwelmed? (See Italy). It does seem like its overwhelming the young who are very laid back about COVID-19, and chaff the most at restrictions. To be frank - that seems very selfish. Imagine if the virus had a 30% mortality rate in your cohort? You'd be terrified. (I'm young, with two young kids under 5. My parents refused to see me or our kids for a couple of months, out of fear they might catch it from us - I missed them as did their grandkids, but I understand why - it must have been scary for them). And even that aside - have you considered that a lot of the economic downturn isn't from the actual health measures in place - but from the uncertainty, doubt and fear caused by a virus pandemic? People are scared, and that's naturally going to curb some spending. We are a interlinked global economy, and you cannot escape that. I hope that we'll have a vaccine soon, so we can go back to normal - but in lieu of that, trying to stamp out the virus or contain it isn't a bad goal.

1996 6y ago
> To be frank - that seems very selfish. No, it seems logical: if the elderly are at risk, by all means, let them shelter at home and give them money without destroying the economy (as the elderly as less likely to be employed). Even better, for old people who need to work, give them full pay every week, and just ask them in return to stay at home and use uber eats. But we didn't do that. Too bad: it would still have saved a lot of money (and the actual economy) > I hope that we'll have a vaccine soon I will be generous enough to not claim my dose, to let you and others test it first, to make sure there are no autoimmune diseases or other bad things it can trigger
- monocasa 6y ago
  My 38 yo healthy coworker died from it. It's not just the elderly at risk.

victorhooi 6y ago

Also - I should mention - it's the job of governments to guide their people through these sorts of pandemics, natural disasters etc. This is why government are engaging in stimulus spending, or increasing their social support programs. This is why they exist.

nostromo 6y ago

WHO has predicted hundreds of millions of people will risk starvation this year due to the economic ramifications of lockdowns. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pandemic-could-mean-260-million-people-worldwide-marching-toward-starvation https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pandemic-could-mean-260-mi...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gdubs 6y ago
The lockdowns? The linked interview doesn’t mention lockdowns once — it talks about the effect of the pandemic. They go even further to say that it’s not so much money that’s the concern right now — it’s the supply chain. Critical, essential services aren’t being shutdown with lockdowns. They’re being shutdown because people are getting sick — like the food processing plants in the US, where people work in very close proximity to each other, indoors, all day long.
- foogazi 6y ago
  Seeing a lot of comments doing the pandemic <—-> lockdown switch We are in lockdown because of the pandemic. Half the people don’t care, the other half don’t want to get it - the economy is affected until those percentages budge
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    That depends on what you mean by "because of". The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians.
    - foogazi 6y ago
      > That depends on what you mean by "because of". A direct response to the global covid pandemic > The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians. Do you think there was another reason for the lockdown besides slowing down infections?

ianleeclark 6y ago

> Back when this started I made the claim that the long term consequences of lock down would exceed the short term benefits . And yet the USA will both have their cake and eat it too. You get both the full brunt of the virus alongside economic collapse. Instead of discussing the very real results of a demand collapse and how to address that, we get borderline eugenics posts attempting to throw more meat back into the grinder. Its all so incredibly abstract, these lives you want to sacrifice at your local Applebee's. But, hey, you're just worried about the long-term results--you're the caring one here. Those of us who want lockdown, were the ones causing the harm. Not the lack of a safety net, not the collapse of consensus, not the completely incompetent response, and never the fact that the copper has been so thoroughly stripped from the global supply chains that you couldn't even get enough masks into the country with a several months headstart.

qntty 6y ago

There are two problems with this. The first is that it's impossible to know what the consequences of a lockdown are, because in all likelihood, many people would be staying home and losing jobs without a "lockdown" because people would still be afraid to go anywhere. The second problem is that the consequences that we're seeing in the USA aren't exactly the "consequences of a lockdown", they're the consequences of a half-ass lockdown that didn't decrease the numbers like they did in other countries. Both because of non-compliance of people and state/local government, and because of a broken healthcare system. You can't really blame that on the lockdown.

ryandrake 6y ago
We should really stop even calling it a “lockdown.” What an exaggeration! Nobody’s locked into their homes. States issued these half-assed “Stay At Home orders” which were largely ignored. They might as well have been called Stay At Home suggestions. Around me, you couldn’t even tell there was a worldwide deadly pandemic: everyone is out horsing around and stores and restaurants are packed—no masks. The USA never had a lockdown which is why this is turning into a sustained disaster.

akvadrako 6y ago

Some people have down the math and it's pretty clear the lockdown will destroy more years of life then it can possibly save: https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_life_destroyed_saved https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_li...