6 ms·

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

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.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
acqq 6y ago
> when they were (practically all) temporarily lifted for political reasons, the world did not stop turning and neither did any systems collapse. I've checked, there's no point: It "worked"... but only for a short time! Now the number of reported deaths per day reached the highest since the start of epidemics. And before that short time of "everything's open", the measures enforced were among the strongest applied in Europe. So the whole episode doesn't prove anything. Yes, after the extremely strong lockdown a small country can pretend for a month or so that "everything's fine" and that is totally unsurprising: look at the shape of all exponential functions: the start always appears so close to the x axis. Only later the exponential property of the curve becomes obvious, especially knowing that a person infected today won't be immediately sick and even less dead -- it takes time. And the spread continues during the time most have no or mild symptoms. Big countries can do all that even longer before the problems can't be hidden. But sooner or later the need for new hospitals for newly infected patients becomes obvious, which is exactly what can be seen now. No country is going to bluff its way out of this pandemics. More than one tried. My favorite country is Vietnam: they still have zero deaths in a country with 100 million inhabitants. Maybe other countries should check what they are doing? Also, Taiwan has only 7 deaths up to now, having 23 million inhabitants. Thailand has only 58 deaths, with 70 million living there. These three countries have together 200 million living there and still less than 100 reported deaths. Taiwan banned the export of surgical masks and lifted it only a few days ago, and produced even 20 million masks per day(!) for its own needs: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3959712 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3959712 Think about it: it produced a new mask for every its citizen every day. Taiwan had around 20 cases total and exactly one death in the last two months.
ScottBurson 6y ago
> 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. I don't think anyone thought of it as established fact. But it also wasn't an established fact that we didn't have to take all those measures. It's a question of risk, not of absolute foreknowledge. Also, as @acqq correctly points out, a period of time with strict lockdown can reduce the number of cases to the point that a relaxation of controls doesn't immediately result in a large outbreak. An exponential curve has a flat region [0] where it doesn't seem to be getting out of hand. If you manage to put yourselves well into that flat region, you will have bought yourself a period of time in which the controls can be relaxed. But it's only temporary. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

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.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

> when they were (practically all) temporarily lifted for political reasons, the world did not stop turning and neither did any systems collapse. I've checked, there's no point: It "worked"... but only for a short time! Now the number of reported deaths per day reached the highest since the start of epidemics. And before that short time of "everything's open", the measures enforced were among the strongest applied in Europe. So the whole episode doesn't prove anything. Yes, after the extremely strong lockdown a small country can pretend for a month or so that "everything's fine" and that is totally unsurprising: look at the shape of all exponential functions: the start always appears so close to the x axis. Only later the exponential property of the curve becomes obvious, especially knowing that a person infected today won't be immediately sick and even less dead -- it takes time. And the spread continues during the time most have no or mild symptoms. Big countries can do all that even longer before the problems can't be hidden. But sooner or later the need for new hospitals for newly infected patients becomes obvious, which is exactly what can be seen now. No country is going to bluff its way out of this pandemics. More than one tried. My favorite country is Vietnam: they still have zero deaths in a country with 100 million inhabitants. Maybe other countries should check what they are doing? Also, Taiwan has only 7 deaths up to now, having 23 million inhabitants. Thailand has only 58 deaths, with 70 million living there. These three countries have together 200 million living there and still less than 100 reported deaths. Taiwan banned the export of surgical masks and lifted it only a few days ago, and produced even 20 million masks per day(!) for its own needs: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3959712 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3959712 Think about it: it produced a new mask for every its citizen every day. Taiwan had around 20 cases total and exactly one death in the last two months.

ScottBurson 6y ago

> 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. I don't think anyone thought of it as established fact. But it also wasn't an established fact that we didn't have to take all those measures. It's a question of risk, not of absolute foreknowledge. Also, as @acqq correctly points out, a period of time with strict lockdown can reduce the number of cases to the point that a relaxation of controls doesn't immediately result in a large outbreak. An exponential curve has a flat region [0] where it doesn't seem to be getting out of hand. If you manage to put yourselves well into that flat region, you will have bought yourself a period of time in which the controls can be relaxed. But it's only temporary. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth