4 ms·

Aren't those "lockdown deaths" still "Coronavirus deaths" though? The reason lockdowns have to be done is to prevent the much larger number of deaths that would

Aren't those "lockdown deaths" still "Coronavirus deaths" though? The reason lockdowns have to be done is to prevent the much larger number of deaths that would occur if coronavirus is allowed to spread unhindered. So it's not clear to me why you need to make this distinction here. Of course the distinction matters from a biological and medical point of view, but from a policy point of view all you really need to know is that if coronavirus didn't exist then those deaths wouldn't have happened.

guscost 6y ago
> The reason lockdowns have to be done is to prevent the much larger number of deaths that would occur if coronavirus is allowed to spread unhindered. This claim is not accepted by all in the medical or scientific community. This is just the line from the epidemiologists who have the most influence, and it has been amplified by the media into some sort of unquestionable creed. My guess is the damage that these epidemiologists have done is going to be far worse than the disease itself. If you can't see that their over-simplified non-linear models are essentially just guesses too, then you are missing a big part of the picture.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  Nothing is ever "accepted by all in the medical or scientific community", that's an impossible standard. Of course the models that we have aren't perfect and there can (and will) be mistakes, but most of the community agrees that they are the best we have at the moment. I'm not sure what you mean by "over-simplified non-linear models", please elaborate. I would say in general though that the problem is not the models but the parameters - this is such a new virus that modellers have to make various assumptions about things that we can't possibly know yet.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  I mean it's really simple. No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario) Here in Austin our medical community is practically begging us to take better precautions because our hospital system is starting to hit capacity due to the second wave we're staring down [1]. Saying it's not 'accepted' in the medical community seems wrong. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths >Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario) Right, but eventually as things taper off there's a crossover point where the first option will have less deaths going forward. Where that crossover point is the point of contention.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      Really? how exactly would people go to hospital if they are already overwhelmed& Like, have their cancer surgery in hospital cafeteria?
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      Well, no, because we see what happens when we try and go over the crossover point here in Austin. COVID-19 rates go up, hospitals become overwhelmed again and then people avoid hospitals or the people that need to go can't. Which then means you have to go into lockdown again while people yell at you for going into lockdown not understanding that the alternative was made nonviable due to them not taking basic precautions.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Are... are epidemiologists not part of the medical or scientific community? (Genuinely asking, since I wasn't aware epidemiology wasn't a science.)
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Given that we have actually seen hospitals overwhelmed in various places, is hard for me to understand how people can still take this position.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Aren't those "lockdown deaths" still "Coronavirus deaths" though? Depends on the intended use of the information. Calling them coronavirus deaths and then turning around and using the size of that number as an reason to continue lockdown would be foolhardy at best. If you're trying to evaluate the impact of the virus on X or you're writing a passage for a history textbook years later I see no problem lumping them in together.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  > Calling them coronavirus deaths and then turning around and using the size of that number as an reason to continue lockdown would be foolhardy at best. Sure, but I don't think anybody serious is doing that. Obviously people are considering things like this in their models. But the total number of coronavirus deaths is still useful when trying to measure the effect of a failure to contain the virus. So for example when you want to compare countries/states that locked down early and effectively to countries/states that waited too long, saw a massive spike in deaths and then had to lock down even harder. In that case you don't really care what caused the deaths, you just care about the fact that it appears that you could have avoided them with better policy.

guscost 6y ago

> The reason lockdowns have to be done is to prevent the much larger number of deaths that would occur if coronavirus is allowed to spread unhindered. This claim is not accepted by all in the medical or scientific community. This is just the line from the epidemiologists who have the most influence, and it has been amplified by the media into some sort of unquestionable creed. My guess is the damage that these epidemiologists have done is going to be far worse than the disease itself. If you can't see that their over-simplified non-linear models are essentially just guesses too, then you are missing a big part of the picture.

DangerousPie 6y ago
Nothing is ever "accepted by all in the medical or scientific community", that's an impossible standard. Of course the models that we have aren't perfect and there can (and will) be mistakes, but most of the community agrees that they are the best we have at the moment. I'm not sure what you mean by "over-simplified non-linear models", please elaborate. I would say in general though that the problem is not the models but the parameters - this is such a new virus that modellers have to make various assumptions about things that we can't possibly know yet.
fzeroracer 6y ago
I mean it's really simple. No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario) Here in Austin our medical community is practically begging us to take better precautions because our hospital system is starting to hit capacity due to the second wave we're staring down [1]. Saying it's not 'accepted' in the medical community seems wrong. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4kCwo1JMc
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >No lockdown => hospitals overwhelmed => people can't get care they need or people avoid hospitals to avoid getting sick => excess deaths >Lockdown => hospitals less overwhelmed => people avoid hospitals due to lockdown or to avoid getting sick => excess deaths (but less than the no lockdown scenario) Right, but eventually as things taper off there's a crossover point where the first option will have less deaths going forward. Where that crossover point is the point of contention.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Really? how exactly would people go to hospital if they are already overwhelmed& Like, have their cancer surgery in hospital cafeteria?
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    Well, no, because we see what happens when we try and go over the crossover point here in Austin. COVID-19 rates go up, hospitals become overwhelmed again and then people avoid hospitals or the people that need to go can't. Which then means you have to go into lockdown again while people yell at you for going into lockdown not understanding that the alternative was made nonviable due to them not taking basic precautions.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
Are... are epidemiologists not part of the medical or scientific community? (Genuinely asking, since I wasn't aware epidemiology wasn't a science.)
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Given that we have actually seen hospitals overwhelmed in various places, is hard for me to understand how people can still take this position.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Aren't those "lockdown deaths" still "Coronavirus deaths" though? Depends on the intended use of the information. Calling them coronavirus deaths and then turning around and using the size of that number as an reason to continue lockdown would be foolhardy at best. If you're trying to evaluate the impact of the virus on X or you're writing a passage for a history textbook years later I see no problem lumping them in together.

DangerousPie 6y ago
> Calling them coronavirus deaths and then turning around and using the size of that number as an reason to continue lockdown would be foolhardy at best. Sure, but I don't think anybody serious is doing that. Obviously people are considering things like this in their models. But the total number of coronavirus deaths is still useful when trying to measure the effect of a failure to contain the virus. So for example when you want to compare countries/states that locked down early and effectively to countries/states that waited too long, saw a massive spike in deaths and then had to lock down even harder. In that case you don't really care what caused the deaths, you just care about the fact that it appears that you could have avoided them with better policy.