3 ms·

> 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 close

> 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...
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > First: 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. In places with much lighter lockdowns (or no lockdowns at all) we still had significant social distancing. It turns out most people don’t want to catch a deadly disease. So we are comparing strict lockdowns compared with sensible social distancing - not with doing nothing. There are strong arguments to be made, and we will have to see how they play out over the next 12-18 months, that strict lockdowns actually resulted in more deaths because the fear they induced stopped people from doing regular health checkups etc. > The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people There is endless misinformation being put out over COVID. Comparing the other Nordic countries to Sweden is misleading because it was on a different trajectory before any lockdowns were implemented. Note if you compare Sweden to the US it’s around half of the US rate per 100,000 despite lack of lockdowns. Now the nice thing about Sweden is they have open data and accurate reporting of data - and so you can dive in and see that their total deaths haven’t changed significantly compared to prior years. They have had ~100 excess deaths/week - and if you remove the older population (>65) then it’s basically 0 excess deaths/week. It will be interesting next year to see if (as typically happens with the flu) we see significantly fewer total deaths - which would indicate for those 100/week excess deaths this year the total life lost per death was 1 year. But that’s just my speculation for now. Edit: A clear trend is emerging that a countries deaths come down to two factors: 1) Ability to properly protect the old See the failures in Italy and NYC as examples. 2) The overall health of your young population See for example Singapore where the majority of infections were in young healthy men - and their corresponding tiny 26 deaths for ~45000 positive cases.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > So we are comparing strict lockdowns compared with sensible social distancing - not with doing nothing. No, we are not comparing lockdowns with sensible social distancing. We aren't comparing lockdowns with doing nothing, either. We're comparing lockdowns with what people actually do when you don't have a lockdown, which is in some cases sensible social distancing, but in other cases traveling 150 miles to wear your mask as a decorative chin strap and cough in a waiter's face. Yes, some people sensibly social distance. But given the opportunity, many people don't. > There are strong arguments to be made, and we will have to see how they play out over the next 12-18 months, that strict lockdowns actually resulted in more deaths because the fear they induced stopped people from doing regular health checkups etc. Didn't you say, just one paragraph back, that "It turns out most people don't want to catch a deadly disease."? Wouldn't this cause them to not do regular health checkups, etc. as well? I suppose it's possible that Covid itself causes just enough fear to cause people to social distance but not skip preventive care, and lockdowns just happen to tip people over into too much fear so they skip preventive care. But I don't think you have the evidence to claim that's what's happening. That's a long way of saying, [citation needed]. > Comparing the other Nordic countries to Sweden is misleading because it was on a different trajectory before any lockdowns were implemented. [citation needed] > Note if you compare Sweden to the US it’s around half of the US rate per 100,000 despite lack of lockdowns. Comparing Sweden to the US is misleading because the US doesn't have socialized medicine and is much more densely populated in the major cities where the disease spread. You can [citation needed] me on either one of those claims if you want and I'll provide links, but I think they're well known enough to not need citation. > They have had ~100 excess deaths/week - and if you remove the older population (>65) then it’s basically 0 excess deaths/week. Well, there it is. The age of the people dying is only relevant if you don't care about the elderly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow a conscience. > 1) Ability to properly protect the old Lockdowns protect the old.
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > We're comparing lockdowns with what people actually do when you don't have a lockdown As long as we are comparing with what people actually do when there is a lockdown. This is what makes the data analysis so difficult - perhaps in some areas people actually followed lockdown rules - where I live basically nobody did. Yet on paper we had similar lockdowns. > Wouldn't this cause them to not do regular health checkups, etc. as well? It doesn’t seem so - but it’s hard to know for sure because you are comparing different cultures and demographics. Swedes kept going to routine checkups whereas Californians didn’t - but was that caused by the lockdowns or differences in culture? Like I said in 12-18 months the data will be a lot clearer. > [citation needed] Follow Michael Levitt on Twitter - https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013 https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013 > Comparing Sweden to the US is misleading Yes, and so is comparing Sweden and Denmark - but you were happy to do that. Latest excess deaths show Sweden is doing better than the European average - https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1283814254957789184 https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/12838142549... > Well, there it is. The age of the people dying is only relevant if you don't care about the elderly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow a conscience. Nonsense - a 5 year old dying is completely different from an 80 year old dying. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the elderly. > Lockdowns protect the old. That’s not clear. NYC for example has had a ruinous number of deaths in nursing homes. Maybe you meant “Lockdowns are intended to protect the old”?

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...

iateanapple 6y ago
> First: 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. In places with much lighter lockdowns (or no lockdowns at all) we still had significant social distancing. It turns out most people don’t want to catch a deadly disease. So we are comparing strict lockdowns compared with sensible social distancing - not with doing nothing. There are strong arguments to be made, and we will have to see how they play out over the next 12-18 months, that strict lockdowns actually resulted in more deaths because the fear they induced stopped people from doing regular health checkups etc. > The death rate in Sweden has now risen significantly higher than many other countries in Europe, reaching more than 22 per 100,000 people There is endless misinformation being put out over COVID. Comparing the other Nordic countries to Sweden is misleading because it was on a different trajectory before any lockdowns were implemented. Note if you compare Sweden to the US it’s around half of the US rate per 100,000 despite lack of lockdowns. Now the nice thing about Sweden is they have open data and accurate reporting of data - and so you can dive in and see that their total deaths haven’t changed significantly compared to prior years. They have had ~100 excess deaths/week - and if you remove the older population (>65) then it’s basically 0 excess deaths/week. It will be interesting next year to see if (as typically happens with the flu) we see significantly fewer total deaths - which would indicate for those 100/week excess deaths this year the total life lost per death was 1 year. But that’s just my speculation for now. Edit: A clear trend is emerging that a countries deaths come down to two factors: 1) Ability to properly protect the old See the failures in Italy and NYC as examples. 2) The overall health of your young population See for example Singapore where the majority of infections were in young healthy men - and their corresponding tiny 26 deaths for ~45000 positive cases.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > So we are comparing strict lockdowns compared with sensible social distancing - not with doing nothing. No, we are not comparing lockdowns with sensible social distancing. We aren't comparing lockdowns with doing nothing, either. We're comparing lockdowns with what people actually do when you don't have a lockdown, which is in some cases sensible social distancing, but in other cases traveling 150 miles to wear your mask as a decorative chin strap and cough in a waiter's face. Yes, some people sensibly social distance. But given the opportunity, many people don't. > There are strong arguments to be made, and we will have to see how they play out over the next 12-18 months, that strict lockdowns actually resulted in more deaths because the fear they induced stopped people from doing regular health checkups etc. Didn't you say, just one paragraph back, that "It turns out most people don't want to catch a deadly disease."? Wouldn't this cause them to not do regular health checkups, etc. as well? I suppose it's possible that Covid itself causes just enough fear to cause people to social distance but not skip preventive care, and lockdowns just happen to tip people over into too much fear so they skip preventive care. But I don't think you have the evidence to claim that's what's happening. That's a long way of saying, [citation needed]. > Comparing the other Nordic countries to Sweden is misleading because it was on a different trajectory before any lockdowns were implemented. [citation needed] > Note if you compare Sweden to the US it’s around half of the US rate per 100,000 despite lack of lockdowns. Comparing Sweden to the US is misleading because the US doesn't have socialized medicine and is much more densely populated in the major cities where the disease spread. You can [citation needed] me on either one of those claims if you want and I'll provide links, but I think they're well known enough to not need citation. > They have had ~100 excess deaths/week - and if you remove the older population (>65) then it’s basically 0 excess deaths/week. Well, there it is. The age of the people dying is only relevant if you don't care about the elderly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow a conscience. > 1) Ability to properly protect the old Lockdowns protect the old.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > We're comparing lockdowns with what people actually do when you don't have a lockdown As long as we are comparing with what people actually do when there is a lockdown. This is what makes the data analysis so difficult - perhaps in some areas people actually followed lockdown rules - where I live basically nobody did. Yet on paper we had similar lockdowns. > Wouldn't this cause them to not do regular health checkups, etc. as well? It doesn’t seem so - but it’s hard to know for sure because you are comparing different cultures and demographics. Swedes kept going to routine checkups whereas Californians didn’t - but was that caused by the lockdowns or differences in culture? Like I said in 12-18 months the data will be a lot clearer. > [citation needed] Follow Michael Levitt on Twitter - https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013 https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013 > Comparing Sweden to the US is misleading Yes, and so is comparing Sweden and Denmark - but you were happy to do that. Latest excess deaths show Sweden is doing better than the European average - https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1283814254957789184 https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/12838142549... > Well, there it is. The age of the people dying is only relevant if you don't care about the elderly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow a conscience. Nonsense - a 5 year old dying is completely different from an 80 year old dying. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the elderly. > Lockdowns protect the old. That’s not clear. NYC for example has had a ruinous number of deaths in nursing homes. Maybe you meant “Lockdowns are intended to protect the old”?