9 ms·
> we didn't follow through with the lockdown nationally to actually stomp the virus This statement implies that there's a way to completely eradicate the virus
by marcell 6y ago
> we didn't follow through with the lockdown nationally to actually stomp the virus
This statement implies that there's a way to completely eradicate the virus, eg. if everyone in the world stays locked in their homes for 6 weeks, then the virus will be eradicated. That's not realistic, the level of coordination required to make that happen does not exist.
So eradicating the virus was never on the table, no matter how much we lock down.
- shreyansj 6y agoBut if everyone had stayed locked in for 6 weeks and if that had prevented 50000 deaths, how is that not worth it?
- marcell 6y agoI'm not sure if it's worth it or not, but after you end the lockdown, you have the same situation you did at the start of the lockdown. I think there's a huge misconception in many media sources that lockdown will somehow eliminate the virus. It can change the onset pattern of the virus, but that's it.
- shreyansj 6y agoIt's amazing to wonder whether any step, any inconvenience is worth saving even lives when the magnitude of that is in the thousands. Countries have literally been bombed over far fewer deaths.
- burner831234 6y agoSuch a good point. Ppl really do not seem to understand this.
- bmitc 6y ago> Countries have literally been bombed over far fewer deaths. This virus, itself, isn't anti-American or "terrorist" enough for the U.S. to wage war against, yet it's far deadlier.
- bjustin 6y agoEven if the US is in the same situation now as we were at the start of the SIP orders in March, given that many other advanced countries have the virus under control, we should have an easier time getting materials and equipment to deal with the virus now. Plus we have more evidence to base our decisions on. We can look at specific other countries and see what works, assuming people don't turn it into politics like they did with masks. It's really sad that some people believe wearing a cloth mask decreases your blood oxygen saturation, regardless of their education or previous interactions with doctors/dentists/etc that already wore masks on a regular basis pre-pandemic.
- rsfern 6y agoOne of the main points of the lockdowns were to get the infection rate down to a level where testing and tracing is tractable, not to outright eliminate the virus necessarily. It seems like most states in the US were not prepared for that when they decided to open back up, and now places like FL are in this impossible situation — how do you trace 10k+ infections a day?
- thatguy0900 6y agoHow could that possibly have happened? Food needs to be planted, harvested(in many situations primarily by migratory workers from other countries) and delivered, power needs to be kept up, necessary medical supplies needs manufactoring, water needs to be cleaned and delivered. There's no scenario where the world gets to collectively take a break
- shreyansj 6y agoRight, but the world could have refrained from partying on the beaches [1] [1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2020/07/16/vacationers-party-florida-even-covid-19-cases-surge/5449754002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2020/07/16/vacati...
- rayiner 6y agoDid beaches make a difference? They did that in Florida during spring break in March, but Florida has low cases until just recently.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoWeren't the spring breakers mostly from out of state?
- JungleGymSam 6y agoThey could have also refrained from protesting and rioting over a demonstrably false narrative of death-by-police.
- pixl97 6y agoAnd beer must be drank "Bar lives matters", as Austin Texas bar owner said.
- adolph 6y agoIt depends on the denominator. There is no free lunch. If there is an estimate for death prevention, what is the estimated cost in lives? Given that death is a certainty for all, how many lost person-days do the 50k deaths represent? Since the lock down means no normal activities such as routine doctor visits, how many person-days would be lost due to undetected illness or delayed treatment? Staying locked in is a strategy for preventing excess deaths from overwhelming a health system. It isn't a long term strategy for eliminating all virus related death.
- shreyansj 6y agoHere's the other side - How many deaths are acceptable? If death is a certainty for all, should we just get rid of the health care systems? Should we stop research into some of the diseases? Which ones? How many person-days/productivity has been lost because of preventable deaths? We are talking about a 4/6/8 week lockdown, that's not long term, that's immediate term.
- adolph 6y agoNo, no, please don’t waste time constructing persons of straw. One insinuating that my position is “get rid of healthcare” is especially odious since the counterfactual I raised was one considering impacts of preventative care missed due to lockdowns. You made a rhetorical claim: “locked in for 6 weeks and if that had prevented 50000 deaths, how is that not worth it?” How do you know if it is worth it or not if you don’t know the cost of being locked in for 6 weeks? Ignoring the other track doesn’t seem a path to a well considered decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoSo you make an exception for essential services, and count health care as an essential service. Tune the lock down so that it makes sense.
- JungleGymSam 6y agoIs this a serious question?
- mortehu 6y agoIf you're talking about US, that's 275,688 person days in lockdown per death prevented, although that seems so extreme I'm afraid my math is off.
- troupe 6y agoBut if everyone had of x for y weeks and that prevented z deaths, how is that not worth it? x=stopped driving y=52 z=34,000 or x=not gone skiing y=4 months z=41 I'm not sure where the line is, but there are a number of things we could ban to lower the death rate. That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, but I'm just not sure I have any logical cut off point for what I would support and what I wouldn't other than just the way it feels looking at the numbers and how much it inconveniences me personally. (And I happen to like lockdown...)
- watwut 6y agoComplete eradication is not what Europe nor China are doing and have better results.
- strgcmc 6y agoThis. And maybe we shouldn't trust China's reported data, but Europe is almost doing miraculously well if you compare to the USA. Not going for eradication, but containment. With containment, everything else is possible (healthcare system not overloaded, economy can be opened up, schools can reopen, etc.). The US has capitulated completely, and even containment isn't really on the table nationally; on a state-by-state basis, some states may achieve a level of containment, but others are simply not even trying (or like Georgia, actively banning containment measures like local mask enforcement orders).
- vondur 6y agoWhere in the US is the health care system overwhelmed?
- Izkata 6y agoRight now, I'm aware of problems in Texas. Don't know how widespread or if other states are, though.
- humaniania 6y agoTexas https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/14/texas-hospitals-coronavirus/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/14/texas-hospitals-coro... Arizona https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2020/07/13/arizona-coronavirus-update-july-13-stress-hospitals-remains-high/5427493002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/20... Florida https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/10/florida-coronavirus-cases-icu-beds-arizona-texas https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/10/florida-coro... Georgia https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/16/891997539/georgia-hospital-worker-sounds-alarm-i-have-never-ever-seen-anything-like-this https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
- 6y ago
- samatman 6y agoIt appears to have worked for New Zealand, though notably, not anywhere else, even Australia. So you can argue that it was infeasible, and I would have to agree with you. But you can't argue it was impossible.
- rayiner 6y agoIsland.
- samatman 6y agoYes, exactly. But Australia is also an island, in the relevant sense for this discussion, and didn't succeed in eradication. Hawaii also had considerable success, albeit recently undermined. Much to my chagrin, since I live here. My conclusion is that eradicating this virus is very difficult, even with all the advantages. But again, not impossible.
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoAustralia's is an interesting case because the recent spike coincides (~2 week lag) with the lifting of most of the restrictions. It's also only really spiking in one state (although NSW may be slipstreaming Victoria). This is evidence that the lockdown rules were having a significant effect on suppression, and eradication may have been within reach had the easing been delayed another month or two.
- wfreeborn 6y agoAdding an Australian perspective here. Our politicians did not share the same approach as New Zealand (which started with a level 4 lockdown and stayed there for 6-8 weeks). The approach here has certainly been more unified than the US, but states are encouraged to pursue their own approaches, with some states (WA, SA, Queensland) having much more success than others (NSW, Victoria). The plan here was never to pursue eradication, but to flatten the curve and keep infection rates manageable. I wish we'd considered eradication more seriously. As a country we have the resources to support the country through that 6 week period, and the national government would have done a decent enough job in ensuring the population had sufficient support through that period.
- oramit 6y agoI actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? While we were locked down there would be an enormous marshaling of resources so we could equip everyone with PPE/Masks, get testing going, and do contract tracing. But because we didn't lock down the entire nation we snuffed out the hot spots in Washington and New York but let new ones fester and they are now out of control.
- treis 6y agoWe didn't snuff out hot spots. The virus was/is still in NYC and Washington. No matter how long we locked down for it would still be there waiting to emerge after the lock down ended. That was the problem with the lockdown. It was touted as a solution when its just a delaying tactic. Schools are the same. Keeping them closed is just a delaying tactic. And like the lockdown, unless we delay until a vaccine then it's a pointless delay.
- oramit 6y agoI don't remember lockdowns being touted as a solution. I always understood it as a delaying tactic so things could be brought back under some control. Flatten the curve and all that. NYC didn't eliminate the virus but they've kept their curve flat so it's not getting out of control again. This delaying tactic is all we have for right now, its likely saved thousands of lives, and that's not nothing. What is your plan for the next stage?
- treis 6y agoIt's not clear what the impact of the lockdowns are. You say that they've saved thousands, but in a lot of places we are back to where we were before the lockdown. Or even doing worse. I suspect that the lockdowns delayed deaths, but in most places will not have substantially reduced them. The plan for the next stage is all of the public health measures that other countries have used to contain it. Masks, hygiene, social distancing, contact tracing, etc. At this point we know how to stop it. Compliance is not there and every day that passes it goes down.
- DennisP 6y agoOther countries have done far better than the US. We could have done the same.