5 ms·

Viruses spread exponentially. It only takes one case to start a massive outbreak. No matter how many cases there are today, anywhere that 'reopens' will have un

Viruses spread exponentially. It only takes one case to start a massive outbreak. No matter how many cases there are today, anywhere that 'reopens' will have unacceptably high case numbers sooner rather than later. Nowhere can return to what used to be normal ('reopen') until enough people have been vaccinated--with a truly effective vaccine--to prevent new outbreaks from spreading. This will take years or decades.

XorNot 6y ago
Also with hospital beds and an exponentially spreading virus, once you're at 50% capacity (sounds like you've got a lot of headroom right?) you're actually out of beds and over flowing by the next wave (2-3 weeks later with this disease).
cwhiz 6y ago
Okay so if cases start going back up, shut things back down.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's unfortunately a pretty fine line between "oh good, we shut down in time" and "oh shit, there's an out of control growth of infections" that makes that somewhat difficult.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    Recovering from a destroyed local economy is also somewhat difficult. Economic despair and anxiety is not without its own health consequences, either. NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months. Given exponential growth, that’s a “stay the course” indicator, not “loosen up”.
      - cwhiz 6y ago
        Meanwhile, the city is dying. MTA debt is up to $18 billion, population is shrinking rapidly, and stores and restaurants are closing at record rates. We’ve gone from everything is closed to most things are partially open, and the rates are the same. Time to stop burning the local economy to the ground.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        You're under the impression that'll be all better with an out-of-control pandemic raging through the city again?
- toast0 6y ago
  Here's the thing, even if testing was instant, people are likely to get tests only after they have symptoms and symptoms appear after people are contagious. Basically the test numbers we get today show us what the spread was like two weeks ago. And it takes time to shut things back down. This makes it really hard to open up, unless the situation is really good, because there's a good chance of overwhelmimg system again before you have a chance to lockdown.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Even when the system was “overwhelmed” it didn’t cause complete systemic breakdown. There was no superlinear mortality.
    - bleepblorp 6y ago
      This was absolutely not the case in Italy, where many people died because no ICU spaces were available for them. If it didn't happen elsewhere, it didn't happen because lockdowns, and other physical distancing measures, worked. Arguing against taking defensive measures because they worked is like arguing that Y2K was a non-event without taking into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars that were put into making sure it was a non-event.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Localize lockdown may make sense in some places and in the beginning. It definitely doesn't make sense to sill have lockdown now, even in italy. We have better data and better treatment method compare to back in March.
- underwater 6y ago
  There's latency in identifying the spike. And people are not going to deal well with yoyoing lockdowns. They'll become less effective each time.
matz1 6y ago
Yes the virus spread exponentially but for vast majority cases it either asymptomatic or only mild symptoms. Definitely does not warrant a lockdown.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  This kind of advice kills people.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Every kind of advice kills people. For instance, lockdown advice has caused a lot of "deaths of despair" in the US, and the economic damage will kill countless more in the future. That doesn't make it not worth it! But it IS a tradeoff.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  This is wishful thinking that borders on magical thinking.
  - matz1 6y ago
    How is it magical thinking?

XorNot 6y ago

Also with hospital beds and an exponentially spreading virus, once you're at 50% capacity (sounds like you've got a lot of headroom right?) you're actually out of beds and over flowing by the next wave (2-3 weeks later with this disease).

cwhiz 6y ago

Okay so if cases start going back up, shut things back down.

ceejayoz 6y ago
There's unfortunately a pretty fine line between "oh good, we shut down in time" and "oh shit, there's an out of control growth of infections" that makes that somewhat difficult.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Recovering from a destroyed local economy is also somewhat difficult. Economic despair and anxiety is not without its own health consequences, either. NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months. Given exponential growth, that’s a “stay the course” indicator, not “loosen up”.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      Meanwhile, the city is dying. MTA debt is up to $18 billion, population is shrinking rapidly, and stores and restaurants are closing at record rates. We’ve gone from everything is closed to most things are partially open, and the rates are the same. Time to stop burning the local economy to the ground.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        You're under the impression that'll be all better with an out-of-control pandemic raging through the city again?
toast0 6y ago
Here's the thing, even if testing was instant, people are likely to get tests only after they have symptoms and symptoms appear after people are contagious. Basically the test numbers we get today show us what the spread was like two weeks ago. And it takes time to shut things back down. This makes it really hard to open up, unless the situation is really good, because there's a good chance of overwhelmimg system again before you have a chance to lockdown.
- ponker 6y ago
  Even when the system was “overwhelmed” it didn’t cause complete systemic breakdown. There was no superlinear mortality.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    This was absolutely not the case in Italy, where many people died because no ICU spaces were available for them. If it didn't happen elsewhere, it didn't happen because lockdowns, and other physical distancing measures, worked. Arguing against taking defensive measures because they worked is like arguing that Y2K was a non-event without taking into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars that were put into making sure it was a non-event.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Localize lockdown may make sense in some places and in the beginning. It definitely doesn't make sense to sill have lockdown now, even in italy. We have better data and better treatment method compare to back in March.
underwater 6y ago
There's latency in identifying the spike. And people are not going to deal well with yoyoing lockdowns. They'll become less effective each time.

matz1 6y ago

Yes the virus spread exponentially but for vast majority cases it either asymptomatic or only mild symptoms. Definitely does not warrant a lockdown.

bleepblorp 6y ago
This kind of advice kills people.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  Every kind of advice kills people. For instance, lockdown advice has caused a lot of "deaths of despair" in the US, and the economic damage will kill countless more in the future. That doesn't make it not worth it! But it IS a tradeoff.
heavyset_go 6y ago
This is wishful thinking that borders on magical thinking.
- matz1 6y ago
  How is it magical thinking?