5 ms·

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 d

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
The lag time for deaths after infection is 4-6 weeks. (I've heard of cases where people spent three months on a ventilator before recovering. They're very rare, but they do happen.) And of course if the initial lockdown measures were effective, the base for a new wave of infections would be low, and it would take a separate 4 to 6 weeks for the next wave of cases to become seriously problematic.
helij 6y ago
I understand your point of view and how it may look but I disagree that said country lifted restrictions because of elections. Countries around you also lifted restrictions at the same time. The whole region went out of the lockdown pretty quickly with bars opening, etc. There was that derby though that was obvious mistake if you look at it retrospectively. Everything else is pretty much in sync with what other countries did so your point about elections is not really strong.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of that is accurate. You sincerely did not notice the 180 degrees turn in the narrative regarding the pandemic, at the beginning and again after the election? However, my point was that the lifting of the strict measures did not lead to the collapse of the healthcare system, which was the justification of the initial measures. Consider also that the local healthcare system has been only a vague shadow of the advanced state of those in more "developed" countries. In a way, what the locals may call a "social experiment", might be one of the few existing empirical test cases for what really happens when measures are (all but) lifted. Arguably it might also be true (although I think to a lesser degree) for some other countries in the region. With what I know first hand, the virus certainly was not eradicated or conquered before or during the election. But the political response/dealings with that is a whole different discussion, and not one I want to have here.
  - acqq 6y ago
    Of course the virus was not "eradicated" had it been the number of new cases would be simply zero. I see that only in Asian countries. The virus however doesn't have to be "eradicated", it's enough to reduce the number of infected people to bring the country to the less dangerous state: we see that happened in most of the European countries, and it happened there too. So after reaching that state, which can be imagined as a "reset", the virus starts to spread more actively again once the measures are lifted, and of course there is a period where nothing "big" is visible. But that is also what we have seen in many European countries at the start of epidemics: the exponential curve has a phase where the number of cases is very low. Only later it gets to be much worse, fast.

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

The lag time for deaths after infection is 4-6 weeks. (I've heard of cases where people spent three months on a ventilator before recovering. They're very rare, but they do happen.) And of course if the initial lockdown measures were effective, the base for a new wave of infections would be low, and it would take a separate 4 to 6 weeks for the next wave of cases to become seriously problematic.

helij 6y ago

I understand your point of view and how it may look but I disagree that said country lifted restrictions because of elections. Countries around you also lifted restrictions at the same time. The whole region went out of the lockdown pretty quickly with bars opening, etc. There was that derby though that was obvious mistake if you look at it retrospectively. Everything else is pretty much in sync with what other countries did so your point about elections is not really strong.

elmo2you 6y ago
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of that is accurate. You sincerely did not notice the 180 degrees turn in the narrative regarding the pandemic, at the beginning and again after the election? However, my point was that the lifting of the strict measures did not lead to the collapse of the healthcare system, which was the justification of the initial measures. Consider also that the local healthcare system has been only a vague shadow of the advanced state of those in more "developed" countries. In a way, what the locals may call a "social experiment", might be one of the few existing empirical test cases for what really happens when measures are (all but) lifted. Arguably it might also be true (although I think to a lesser degree) for some other countries in the region. With what I know first hand, the virus certainly was not eradicated or conquered before or during the election. But the political response/dealings with that is a whole different discussion, and not one I want to have here.
- acqq 6y ago
  Of course the virus was not "eradicated" had it been the number of new cases would be simply zero. I see that only in Asian countries. The virus however doesn't have to be "eradicated", it's enough to reduce the number of infected people to bring the country to the less dangerous state: we see that happened in most of the European countries, and it happened there too. So after reaching that state, which can be imagined as a "reset", the virus starts to spread more actively again once the measures are lifted, and of course there is a period where nothing "big" is visible. But that is also what we have seen in many European countries at the start of epidemics: the exponential curve has a phase where the number of cases is very low. Only later it gets to be much worse, fast.