4 ms·

This is madness. The lockdown is the only thing that stopped several hundred deaths from becoming several thousand (or much more). No job is worth dying for, an

This is madness. The lockdown is the only thing that stopped several hundred deaths from becoming several thousand (or much more). No job is worth dying for, and few jobs are worth becoming crippled for. Make no mistake that this virus cripples many survivors.

konjin 6y ago
[[citation needed]]
- ImaCake 6y ago
  This is not a substantive comment. Please defend yourself better.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    His point is that you need to defend yourself. There is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns have saved negative lives: that is, they killed people outright who would be alive today if not for lockdowns. Consider that lockdowns cannot stop the virus forever. They were only ever pitched, even by advocates, as a delaying strategy to reduce pressure on hospitals. Total numbers of infected were never meant to change, as logic dictates. However lockdowns and other restrictions, when as long as they have been, do create new deaths by e.g. delaying cancer checkups and treatments, by causing job losses and subsequent poverty related deaths, by stopping the elderly from seeing their family - deaths by loneliness are a real thing in elderly care! If you're going to assert that lockdowns can actually reduce the death rate rather than increase it you will need to give arguments for why that's the case, especially over the long term.
    - ImaCake 6y ago
      Lockdowns in South Korea and Australia have unambigously halted outbreaks. Your argument makes sense as far as the initial plan was, but it is clear in hindsight that lockdowns can effectively stop the outbreak and thus will actually lead to reduced cases. Just because America has failed utterly to stop it's outbreak doesn't mean it isn't possible.
      - konjin 6y ago
        Ah yes, the great roaring success that is the Australian lock down: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel-quarantine-linked-to-99-of-victorias-covid-cases-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel...
        ImaCake 6y ago
        That is a failure of hotel quarantine. The lockdown that followed was harsh and it worked. I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID.
        konjin 6y ago
        >I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID. Try living under curfew for a few months and see if you still think that keeping 10000 people in their 80s alive for another two years is worth it.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        Halted for how long? It only takes one person or fomite to come in and create a new outbreak that spreads before it's detected. America isn't special in any regard. Only a tiny number of countries are pursuing lockdown-until-vaccine as a strategy, as it's obviously a bad one. It's worth noting that nobody until very recently was claiming lockdowns could eliminate outbreaks. That whole notion was deemed absurd as recently as June. The problem is obvious - for as long as there is a pool of people, somewhere, spreading the disease, and a large pool of people who haven't developed immunity, and international travel, then the virus will get in. Meanwhile lockdowns have catastrophic consequences far in excess of their benefits (halting COVID is not very important given how mild it is).

konjin 6y ago

[[citation needed]]

ImaCake 6y ago
This is not a substantive comment. Please defend yourself better.
- thu2111 6y ago
  His point is that you need to defend yourself. There is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns have saved negative lives: that is, they killed people outright who would be alive today if not for lockdowns. Consider that lockdowns cannot stop the virus forever. They were only ever pitched, even by advocates, as a delaying strategy to reduce pressure on hospitals. Total numbers of infected were never meant to change, as logic dictates. However lockdowns and other restrictions, when as long as they have been, do create new deaths by e.g. delaying cancer checkups and treatments, by causing job losses and subsequent poverty related deaths, by stopping the elderly from seeing their family - deaths by loneliness are a real thing in elderly care! If you're going to assert that lockdowns can actually reduce the death rate rather than increase it you will need to give arguments for why that's the case, especially over the long term.
  - ImaCake 6y ago
    Lockdowns in South Korea and Australia have unambigously halted outbreaks. Your argument makes sense as far as the initial plan was, but it is clear in hindsight that lockdowns can effectively stop the outbreak and thus will actually lead to reduced cases. Just because America has failed utterly to stop it's outbreak doesn't mean it isn't possible.
    - konjin 6y ago
      Ah yes, the great roaring success that is the Australian lock down: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel-quarantine-linked-to-99-of-victorias-covid-cases-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel...
      - ImaCake 6y ago
        That is a failure of hotel quarantine. The lockdown that followed was harsh and it worked. I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID.
        konjin 6y ago
        >I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID. Try living under curfew for a few months and see if you still think that keeping 10000 people in their 80s alive for another two years is worth it.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Halted for how long? It only takes one person or fomite to come in and create a new outbreak that spreads before it's detected. America isn't special in any regard. Only a tiny number of countries are pursuing lockdown-until-vaccine as a strategy, as it's obviously a bad one. It's worth noting that nobody until very recently was claiming lockdowns could eliminate outbreaks. That whole notion was deemed absurd as recently as June. The problem is obvious - for as long as there is a pool of people, somewhere, spreading the disease, and a large pool of people who haven't developed immunity, and international travel, then the virus will get in. Meanwhile lockdowns have catastrophic consequences far in excess of their benefits (halting COVID is not very important given how mild it is).