5 ms·

correlation not causation. the end of lockdown unleashed pent-up frustration and disregard for even simple yet effective distancing precautions--a case of throw

correlation not causation. the end of lockdown unleashed pent-up frustration and disregard for even simple yet effective distancing precautions--a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater behavior as backlash.

whatshisface 6y ago
>correlation not causation. >the end of lockdown unleashed pent-up frustration and disregard* The debate totally set aside, realize that you proposed a causal relationship one sentence after saying "correlation not causation."
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, but "undistancing->more cases" is a simpler if subtler explanation than "unlockdown->more cases", and thereby invalidating the implied causation of the question via occam's razor.
kerkeslager 6y ago
Arguing this at the level of "What should individuals do?" makes no sense, because we have little-to-no data on how effective masks or social distancing are at that level. We're really at the infancy stages of understanding this virus--keep in mind up until a few weeks ago we thought spread from high traffic surfaces was a major transmission vector. At the level of "What should government recommend?"--that's a fundamentally different question from "What should individuals do?" because governments have secondary effects such as people throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Policy decisions have to take into account this effect, so saying that this effect is the real cause of a sudden spike in cases after lockdown ended, is irrelevant. At a policy level, lockdown is more effective than social distancing and masks, and that's because when you lift the lockdown, people don't social distance or wear masks. I live in a town where businesses that attract tourism have reopened. People are wearing masks as chin straps and congregating, and that wasn't happening during lockdown. And to be clear, there are other factors: a country which creates numerous hurdles to access for even the miniscule aid it provides to the poor cannot be surprised when the poor don't want to give up what little income they have to comply with a lockdown. But we have to admit, lockdowns work. That's a fact. The fact that our economy is so fragile that it can't handle the only effective countermeasure to this virus is a separate fact.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, the point is that lockdowns, being basically a superset of distancing, don't add enough protection/reduction on top of distancing for it's enormous cost.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    I understood that as your point the first time. And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. It's more complex than just that, but that's the gist.
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. First - our lockdowns were mostly unenforced (except against businesses). Bars were closed but house parties raged. Second - Sweden didn’t do lockdowns and yet people did practice social distancing.
      - hurrdurr2 6y ago
        I guess Americans aren't as responsible as Swedes.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        First: I don't think there's much data to make an argument here, but I think we can agree that house parties alone don't create as much social contact as house parties AND restaurants, salons, gyms, nonessential retailers, hotels, etc. Second: If your goal is to demonstrate that lockdowns aren't appreciably better than social distancing, Sweden is a great example of why you're wrong. "As time has gone on the numbers don’t seem to have borne out this strategy, as Sweden is seeing more deaths from the virus than it might have otherwise."[1] "The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University, controlled for population. By contrast, Denmark has recorded just over seven deaths per 100,000 people, and both Norway and Finland less than four."[2] Sweden is, in fact, an example where relying on social distancing and masks rather than lockdowns has resulted in more than three times the number of deaths per-capita that were experienced by countries with similar demographics. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-gamble-on-coronavirus-has-it-paid-off/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-lockdown-strategy-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-loc...

whatshisface 6y ago

>correlation not causation. >the end of lockdown unleashed pent-up frustration and disregard* The debate totally set aside, realize that you proposed a causal relationship one sentence after saying "correlation not causation."

clairity 6y ago
yes, but "undistancing->more cases" is a simpler if subtler explanation than "unlockdown->more cases", and thereby invalidating the implied causation of the question via occam's razor.

kerkeslager 6y ago

Arguing this at the level of "What should individuals do?" makes no sense, because we have little-to-no data on how effective masks or social distancing are at that level. We're really at the infancy stages of understanding this virus--keep in mind up until a few weeks ago we thought spread from high traffic surfaces was a major transmission vector. At the level of "What should government recommend?"--that's a fundamentally different question from "What should individuals do?" because governments have secondary effects such as people throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Policy decisions have to take into account this effect, so saying that this effect is the real cause of a sudden spike in cases after lockdown ended, is irrelevant. At a policy level, lockdown is more effective than social distancing and masks, and that's because when you lift the lockdown, people don't social distance or wear masks. I live in a town where businesses that attract tourism have reopened. People are wearing masks as chin straps and congregating, and that wasn't happening during lockdown. And to be clear, there are other factors: a country which creates numerous hurdles to access for even the miniscule aid it provides to the poor cannot be surprised when the poor don't want to give up what little income they have to comply with a lockdown. But we have to admit, lockdowns work. That's a fact. The fact that our economy is so fragile that it can't handle the only effective countermeasure to this virus is a separate fact.

clairity 6y ago
no, the point is that lockdowns, being basically a superset of distancing, don't add enough protection/reduction on top of distancing for it's enormous cost.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  I understood that as your point the first time. And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. It's more complex than just that, but that's the gist.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > And I'm saying, if you don't lock down, distancing doesn't happen. First - our lockdowns were mostly unenforced (except against businesses). Bars were closed but house parties raged. Second - Sweden didn’t do lockdowns and yet people did practice social distancing.
    - hurrdurr2 6y ago
      I guess Americans aren't as responsible as Swedes.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      First: I don't think there's much data to make an argument here, but I think we can agree that house parties alone don't create as much social contact as house parties AND restaurants, salons, gyms, nonessential retailers, hotels, etc. Second: If your goal is to demonstrate that lockdowns aren't appreciably better than social distancing, Sweden is a great example of why you're wrong. "As time has gone on the numbers don’t seem to have borne out this strategy, as Sweden is seeing more deaths from the virus than it might have otherwise."[1] "The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University, controlled for population. By contrast, Denmark has recorded just over seven deaths per 100,000 people, and both Norway and Finland less than four."[2] Sweden is, in fact, an example where relying on social distancing and masks rather than lockdowns has resulted in more than three times the number of deaths per-capita that were experienced by countries with similar demographics. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-gamble-on-coronavirus-has-it-paid-off/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/05/23/swedens-... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-lockdown-strategy-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-loc...