5 ms·

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

by cwhiz 6y ago

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.

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

by cwhiz 6y ago

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

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.