5 ms·

That's a good point.. But also keep in mind that the number we need to compare those deaths to isn't the current covid death rate.. it's the death rate that occ

That's a good point.. But also keep in mind that the number we need to compare those deaths to isn't the current covid death rate.. it's the death rate that occurs once the hospital system is overwhelmed... since that would be the result if all of the restrictions (that cause the effects you listed) were lifted.

elmo2you 6y ago
You might want to give that line of reasoning some additional critical thinking. Because there appears to be a big assumption in that statement. One that might sound all but certain to you, but might not be. What I can tell you is this: I happen to have first hand experience from a country that initially took some of the most draconian of measures when the virus surfaced. All with the usual explanations as for why all that was absolutely necessary. Then, after some time, the local ruler needed to secure a reelection he had already planned before the virus spread. All of a sudden, it was like there was no virus anymore. Of course there was, but the topic was practically taboo while the elections where going on. Now that the elections are over, and said ruler has galvanized his position for the foreseeable future, the virus has returned and the number of infections grown. No surprise that stronger measures came back too. But that's not the interesting part. What is interesting, is that during the elections none of the doom scenarios that almost every country around the globe has used to justify/explain their measures (whatever those might be), happened. There is a good chance that a lot of bad news was suppressed and covered up. If only to ensure the election would not be forcefully shut down. But there are only so many mysteriously dead people and failing hospitals that even a government with absolute power and no accountability can cover up. The point here is this: that despite all the rhetoric about why all those draconian measure were so much necessary, when they were (practically all) temporarily lifted for political reasons, the world did not stop turning and neither did any systems collapse. In fact, in many/most aspects the country managed to temporarily recover more/faster than other countries in the region. That was, of course, until the election was over, and the virus "returned". I am not saying that any of the measures are wrong or that they didn't help prevent deaths. But what I am saying is that maybe the "reasoning" regarding what will happen without them isn't as much established fact as many people like to believe.
- dtech 6y ago
  Without giving the country and statistic your rhetoric is meaningless. We know nothing about the state of your healthcare, the excess deaths, or how long the restrictions were lifted.
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    Maybe I have good reasons for doing neither. And maybe those reasons have nothing to do with the numbers not suiting/supporting my "rhetoric". Either way, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out which country I'm speaking of. I "only" suggested to be careful about assuming what will happen to the systems, when the current measures are (temporarily) gone. That on itself should not be a revolutionary act in the first place. Remember, assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups. If I did not have a seriously surprising experience myself, regarding the story I told, then I certainly would not have responded as I did. But decide for yourself what you do with the info. If you (want to) dismiss it all outright, only because it does not come in a package you demand, then go ahead. I honestly couldn't care.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      > from a country that initially took some of the most draconian of measures when the virus surfaced. If you had perfect quarantine for a month, you would eradicate the virus. If you had harsh measures for a period of time, then ended them in order to do some massive social event, I'm not sure why you would expect outcomes similar to if you had never had a lockdown. A harsh quarantine is a reset button. Places need a little time and a few outsiders in order to be reinfected and start the process again.
      - elmo2you 6y ago
        From personal contacts, directly within the medical community, I can assure you that the measures did not eradicate the virus. If anything, the combination of an already dismal state of the local healthcare system, political opportunism and incompetence, and a systemic (and maybe intentional) failure to test even people who had been in substantial direct contact with the confirmed infected, made sure the virus spread quite "successfully". While in theory your logic might hold, the reality of countries that take such measures, and by which use of power they usually do so, might make that the effects end up almost the opposite of what you might expect.
colordrops 6y ago
Did I say anything about all restrictions being lifted? I don't think I did. Binary thinking here is rampant. There are hundreds of dimensions to quarantine policy, each of which could be tweaked.

elmo2you 6y ago

You might want to give that line of reasoning some additional critical thinking. Because there appears to be a big assumption in that statement. One that might sound all but certain to you, but might not be. What I can tell you is this: I happen to have first hand experience from a country that initially took some of the most draconian of measures when the virus surfaced. All with the usual explanations as for why all that was absolutely necessary. Then, after some time, the local ruler needed to secure a reelection he had already planned before the virus spread. All of a sudden, it was like there was no virus anymore. Of course there was, but the topic was practically taboo while the elections where going on. Now that the elections are over, and said ruler has galvanized his position for the foreseeable future, the virus has returned and the number of infections grown. No surprise that stronger measures came back too. But that's not the interesting part. What is interesting, is that during the elections none of the doom scenarios that almost every country around the globe has used to justify/explain their measures (whatever those might be), happened. There is a good chance that a lot of bad news was suppressed and covered up. If only to ensure the election would not be forcefully shut down. But there are only so many mysteriously dead people and failing hospitals that even a government with absolute power and no accountability can cover up. The point here is this: that despite all the rhetoric about why all those draconian measure were so much necessary, when they were (practically all) temporarily lifted for political reasons, the world did not stop turning and neither did any systems collapse. In fact, in many/most aspects the country managed to temporarily recover more/faster than other countries in the region. That was, of course, until the election was over, and the virus "returned". I am not saying that any of the measures are wrong or that they didn't help prevent deaths. But what I am saying is that maybe the "reasoning" regarding what will happen without them isn't as much established fact as many people like to believe.

dtech 6y ago
Without giving the country and statistic your rhetoric is meaningless. We know nothing about the state of your healthcare, the excess deaths, or how long the restrictions were lifted.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  Maybe I have good reasons for doing neither. And maybe those reasons have nothing to do with the numbers not suiting/supporting my "rhetoric". Either way, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out which country I'm speaking of. I "only" suggested to be careful about assuming what will happen to the systems, when the current measures are (temporarily) gone. That on itself should not be a revolutionary act in the first place. Remember, assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups. If I did not have a seriously surprising experience myself, regarding the story I told, then I certainly would not have responded as I did. But decide for yourself what you do with the info. If you (want to) dismiss it all outright, only because it does not come in a package you demand, then go ahead. I honestly couldn't care.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > from a country that initially took some of the most draconian of measures when the virus surfaced. If you had perfect quarantine for a month, you would eradicate the virus. If you had harsh measures for a period of time, then ended them in order to do some massive social event, I'm not sure why you would expect outcomes similar to if you had never had a lockdown. A harsh quarantine is a reset button. Places need a little time and a few outsiders in order to be reinfected and start the process again.
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      From personal contacts, directly within the medical community, I can assure you that the measures did not eradicate the virus. If anything, the combination of an already dismal state of the local healthcare system, political opportunism and incompetence, and a systemic (and maybe intentional) failure to test even people who had been in substantial direct contact with the confirmed infected, made sure the virus spread quite "successfully". While in theory your logic might hold, the reality of countries that take such measures, and by which use of power they usually do so, might make that the effects end up almost the opposite of what you might expect.

colordrops 6y ago

Did I say anything about all restrictions being lifted? I don't think I did. Binary thinking here is rampant. There are hundreds of dimensions to quarantine policy, each of which could be tweaked.