7 ms·

The goals have fundamentally drifted on covid. In the beginning it was flatten the curve so that hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. The goal wasn’t to eradicate covi

• andrewnicolalde 6y ago
  > We are way beyond the point where hospitals are horribly overwhelmed I ask as someone who genuinely doesn't know either way, but is there a realistic risk of this happening again?
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    Yes. If the numbers creep up past a certain point, you roll back. Or you do like Sweden and just let free citizens make their own decisions.
    • mcguire 6y ago
      87% of the deaths in Sweden were over 70, and they are a net drain on the economy anyway. -- Jonathan Swift
  • albemuth 6y ago
    The “spiteful” people wanting to watch rich people fail are preventing this from happening by being responsible
    • mistermann 6y ago
      How might one go about knowing such a thing?
  • jjeaff 6y ago
    Yes, because in the US, even recently, in covid hotspots hospitals have become overwhelmed. Shutdowns in those areas have managed to get the rates back down.
    • mistermann 6y ago
      I haven't heard of this, does anyone have any articles that go into detail about the magnitude of the overwhelment?
  • choeger 6y ago
    Generally, yes. What happened in New York could happen everywhere (Berlin, Paris, London, Tokyo, Beijing). But in practice the virus seems to have somewhat slowed down. With the notable exceptions of France and Spain the second wave so far seems to grow much slower. That might be due to more tests, but I think the effect is caused by a general change in behavior. We are also better prepared, both in the effectiveness of treatment and the diagnosis of severe cases. Also, if shift comes to shove, there are several experimental vaccines already. They might not be very efficient, but they should be comparatively safe by now. So all in all, I would say the worst could be behind us.
    • UncleOxidant 6y ago
      Winter is coming. The second wave in Europe was initially driven by the young. Now it's beginning to spread to older people.
      • natrik 6y ago
        "2 more weeks.", "We don't know the long term effects", "Winter is coming". We are ~3 months from 2021, COVID-"2019" most likely will be endemic.
  • mquirion 6y ago
    Wisconsin is already heading in that direction. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/09/30/wisconsin-hospitals-wait-list-patients-covid-19-surge-coronavirus-green-bay-fox-valley-wausau/3578202001/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/09/30/wisconsin-hos... North Dakota has 22 ICU beds left in the state.
  • rhino369 6y ago
    Yes, but less than the first time around since a lot of people already had it, we had time to prepare, and social distancing measures (avoiding dense areas, masks, etc) make a fast break out more unlikely.
• tunesmith 6y ago
  I don't understand why people can't entertain the argument that a failure to lock down has greater economic cost than a lockdown.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    We're on month seven of the lockdown in NYC. 87% of restaurants can't pay rent. I am happy to entertain the idea that lockdowns are saving the local economy, but you'll need to back it up with some data. https://thenycalliance.org/assets/documents/informationitems/5Mm2P.pdf https://thenycalliance.org/assets/documents/informationitems... Edit: 87% of the entire hospitality industry, not just restaurants.
    • anthony_romeo 6y ago
      But... lockdowns aren't happening in New York City right now? They're on Phase 4 reopening. The problem isn't lockdowns. The problem is that people don't want to suffer or die from a horrible lung disease, or have their friends and family die from it. Pretending that the disease is harmless and gone doesn't actually make it so. And the only reason lockdowns are so difficult in the US is because most people in the US don't have meaningful savings and are in debt, and there isn't an adequate social welfare system in place to smooth out this very rough patch.
      • cwhiz 6y ago
        >But... lockdowns aren't happening in New York City right now? Yes, they are. Today is the first day in seven months that NYC is allowing indoor dining, but it is at 25% capacity. Gyms, salons, and other similar industries are operating at similar capacity. Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio are already, this week, talking about rolling it back. 87% of the entire hospitality industry is unable to pay rent. >The problem is that people don't want to suffer or die from a horrible lung disease, or have their friends and family die from it. Pretending that the disease is harmless and gone doesn't actually make it so. Adults are capable of making that decision for themselves. This is a free country. If what you are saying is true, indoor dining today should be relatively empty. I'll walk by a few restaurants and let you know how crowded they are.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• libraryatnight 6y ago
  I'm not scared or spiteful. I stay in because it seems logical to minimize exposure. So I reject your crappy generalization.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    "Logical to minimize exposure" is a nifty way of saying you are scared of getting covid. You chose to assign a negative connotation to being scared of catching a virus.
    • ianferrel 6y ago
      Fear is a psychological state. Doing a cost-benefit analysis and avoiding high-cost tail risk doesn't imply anything about psychology.
      • cwhiz 6y ago
        We aren't robots. Well, maybe you're both GPT-3. Maybe I'm GPT-3.
    • libraryatnight 6y ago
      No, it's more respect for my community and a sense of social responsibility. You seem super into this "Are we not free?!" mantra, but reluctant to acknowledge people might choose to stay home even if things were open.
    • foogazi 6y ago
      Is there any virus that we would want to catch?
    • spacekitcat 6y ago
      Is it really unreasonable to be scared of catching a virus that may leave you with severe long term health conditions? (assuming you survive it to begin with). I think a better question is why shouldn’t people be afraid of catching Covid-19.
    • TeaDrunk 6y ago
• jeffbee 6y ago
  > We are way beyond the point where hospitals are horribly overwhelmed This doesn't seem to be universally and objectively true. The nation overall has about 30 ICU beds and 20 ventilators per 100,000 people. In states were the disease outbreak is out of control, such as N. and S. Dakota, they are reporting 300-400 new cases per 100k people per day, 5-10 new deaths per 100k people per day, and hospital occupancy of 25 per 100k for COVID-19 alone, and rapidly increasing.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    So lockdown those places as needed, if that's what the people want. And reopen when the situation is under control.
    • jedberg 6y ago
      In our modern world, people have the ability to travel quickly from one place to another. The only place we can block that is the national border. Therefore, we must have a consistent policy within that border if we ever hope to get this under control. Or we need to set up internal borders, which is quite against the constitution.
      • cwhiz 6y ago
        >Or we need to set up internal borders, which is quite against the constitution. The federal government imposing nationwide lockdowns on each and every state is a gross overreach and completely unconstitutional. It's not an easily solved problem in the US system of government. We're a free country, or at least we pretend to be. Edit: This seems to be causing some confusion. OP is referring to the need to have "consistent policy across state borders."
        • ardy42 6y ago
          > The federal government imposing nationwide lockdowns on each and every state is a gross overreach and completely unconstitutional. AFAIK, it did no such thing. The federal government advised certain measures, and state and local governments (inconsistently) implemented stay at home orders, etc. based on their own authority.
• ardy42 6y ago
  > The goals have fundamentally drifted on covid. In the beginning it was flatten the curve so that hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. The goal wasn’t to eradicate covid but to slow the growth to an acceptable level. It's kinda unreasonable to expect strict adherence to an initial strategy formed in such an uncertain and chaotic period. When more effective containment strategies become known (or discovered to be achievable), they should be pursued. My recollection was that the "flatten the curve" slogan appeared immediately after it became clear that the hope of stopping covid at the border had failed. The main message of the slogan was to maintain optimism because there was still value in social distancing, etc. even though the initial containment had failed. That was also before masks had been widely recommended. Now it seems like masks plus diligent adherence to some social distancing measures can do better than "flatten the curve," but unfortunately too many people aren't interested in doing either, so we have a bigger mess.
  • samatman 6y ago
    If CDC and the Surgeon General had wanted universal mask use, the worst possible strategy would be something like: spend two months insisting that, not only do masks not work, but buying them is unpatriotic and selfish, because we need to save them for health care workers, since masks require a hospital boundary to be effective. Just wash your hands a lot! Then pivot, pretend universal masking was always the advice, and act shocked when the resulting cognitive dissonance coalesces into a partisan issue.
    • ardy42 6y ago
      > If CDC and the Surgeon General had wanted universal mask use, the worst possible strategy would be something like: spend two months insisting that, not only do masks not work, but buying them is unpatriotic and selfish, because we need to save them for health care workers, since masks require a hospital boundary to be effective. Just wash your hands a lot! You know things can change, right? It's a fact that during the initial stages there was insufficient supply of masks of all kinds, and the ones most available for purchase were N95s which are still in short supply. Now surgical masks are literally given away for free at the door at Home Depot. In retrospect, they did make mistakes (too much focus on evidence based vs. common-sense recommendations (e.g. use a homemade mask), and much focus simplify the messaging leading to a neglect of education about the subtleties of mask use). > Then pivot, pretend universal masking was always the advice, and act shocked when the resulting cognitive dissonance coalesces into a partisan issue. No one serious pretends that "universal masking was always the advice" (at least in the US). However, it's clear that the advice now. Like I said initially: it's kinda unreasonable to expect this should have all been figured out perfectly during the initial uncertain and chaotic period.
• subsubzero 6y ago
  100% agree, that is what was drilled into our heads in California since March/April, flatten the curve over and over again. We never got like NY with hospitals overflowing with the severely sick and morgues overflowing. LA was pretty bad in the summer but Gov. Newsom was closing state parks, beaches and even the Natl. Parks along with all non essential businesses. The parks closure was completely idiotic as you want people to be in the sunshine getting exercise and soaking up vitamin D. Transmission outdoors was never a super spreader event and still it was forced down our throats. Now its an absolute chaotic situation where lockdowns go up and down per county every week with it based on number of cases(colleges are open leading to huge case jumps). I think the leadership in this state is completely incompetent and our unemployment rate and subsequent huge drop in taxes will prove it. I am also conflicted about the severity of the virus as I know a old coworker who died of it in his late 40's and a family member of my Wife's who had it but had no symptoms(he is in his mid 30's).
  • CharlesW 6y ago
    > Now its an absolute chaotic situation where lockdowns go up and down per county every week with it based on number of cases(colleges are open leading to huge case jumps). How is a system that loosens and tightens restrictions based on cases and positivity rate "chaotic"?
    • UncleOxidant 6y ago
      Yeah, seems like that would be a system that can respond to changing conditions - seems like a good thing.
    • marcosdumay 6y ago
      Technically, it's almost the literal definition. There are just a few constraints more, and those are satisfied. But I agree it doesn't make a policy bad.
    • bleah1000 6y ago
      Because the system is completely arbitrary. There is no explanation of why 3 extra cases per XX people means you get indoor dining, but 3 less doesn't. All of the numbers that I saw where never justified, and seemed to be based on someone saying we need a few different tiers so that people think we know what we're doing. I think the problem is that there is no easy formula for making these kinds of decisions. You need to look at the data and figure out what's going on before deciding what to do. For example, let's say someone has a big party and there are 100 new cases because of it. It wouldn't make sense to shut down indoor dining just because there was a spike. But on the other hand, if you saw 100 cases coming from a lot of restaurants spread out across a county, then you might consider shutting down indoor dining again.
• asdf333 6y ago
  maybe not necessarily spiteful -- just following the experts and politicians. I feel this discussion could have gone much better if the pandemic were not politicized.
• foogazi 6y ago
  > The goal wasn’t ever to save every last life no matter the economic consequences. My goal is to save my life and my families lives - every one of them If that means wearing masks we wear masks If that means not going to restaurants, we eat at home
  • anoncake 6y ago
    That means never leaving your house again, you could get hit by a car. And optimizing your meals for nothing except expected lifespan.
    • foogazi 6y ago
      Yes, I’m aware of how fortunate I am that WFH is available for me And how it further reduces my risk of daily commute driving
  • samatman 6y ago
    Do any of your family members rely on tips to stay housed? One of mine does. It's been pretty brutal. It's easy to pretend that economic devastation doesn't cause suffering and death, when your only personal consequence is that you finally get that work-from-home gig you always wanted.
    • morsch 6y ago
      Turns out universal healthcare and social safety nets are useful things to have in a crisis.
• Buttons840 6y ago
  Are you saying that hospitals currently overwhelmed or not? It seems to me you're saying "we wanted to stop the kitchen from burning, but once that failed we just let the fire take the rest of the house too". I may be reading it wrong though? Are you saying there is little risk of hospitals being overwhelmed at this point? Or are you saying that things are already so out of control we might as well stop trying?
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    In most places in the US, hospitals are not overwhelmed. The situation is under control. In NYS the cases have been hovering at or below 1,000 per day for 3 months. The peak was nearly 15,000/day. Is the curve not flattened? What are we still doing having entire industries shut down?
    • bleepblorp 6y ago
      "I didn't die in a car crash today, therefore I don't need this stupid seat belt."
      • natrik 6y ago
        "You are 50% more likely to die in a car crash if the car is travelling > 70 miles/hour compared to < 40 miles/hour, therefore we should not allow cars to travel > 70 miles/hour." Bad analogies are available for both sides of the debate.
• president 6y ago
  Any rational discussion on what the right response should've been depends on the trustworthiness of the experts and leadership. Unfortunately, there has been so much bias and politicization from the media, government leaders, policy makers, and even doctors and scientists on both sides that most people are skeptical even if we are making sound decisions based on the stats. The question is - are the stats sound? I'm not convinced we'll ever know. In today's world, the loudest wins the narrative and is considered "right" by the masses.
• blueline 6y ago
  > Wanting to see the economy fail to punish rich people and corporations. does anyone really believe that a failing economy will hurt rich people and corporations more relative to... literally anyone else? i would expect the exact opposite, e.g. https://pomp.substack.com/p/the-k-shaped-recovery-is-now-undeniable https://pomp.substack.com/p/the-k-shaped-recovery-is-now-und...
  • tom-_- 6y ago
    No, it's quite obvious that lockdown would disproportionality impact middle and lower income families. Not to mention that implementing such a spite-based policy would require a massive conspiracy that crossed state boundaries and political ideology, and many of the policymakers themselves would be among the elite that were supposedly targeted. To quote the op: "I think we’ve effectively lost our minds on covid."
    • s1artibartfast 6y ago
      >Not to mention that implementing such a spite-based policy would require a massive conspiracy that crossed state boundaries and political ideology, and many of the policymakers themselves would be among the elite that were supposedly targeted I think this spite based ideology and policy already exists. It started when we changed goals from economic prosperity to economic equality. Once the public believes that they don't and haven't benefited from the overall economy, there is no reason to keep it healthy.
• greesil 6y ago
  Regarding (2), what evidence do you base your conclusion on? Unemployment can be solved with stimulus. 10 year treasury rates are at records lows, and there is a recent tax cut that can be repealed that can pay for it.
• _jal 6y ago
  > Wanting to see the economy fail to punish rich people Come on. This is deeply paranoid and itself rather spiteful. If you cannot discern the differences between the different ways that people can be well-meaning but wrong and a need to Punish Richie Rich, then you frankly need work on some people skills.
  • fogihujy 6y ago
    Not at all; I've spoken with several people like that as well, and while the grandparent and I are onlytwo anecdotal data points I have no doubt they're out there.
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    It's also bizarre. No one thinks that the rich are suffering other than the rich. Poor people don't think that the drifting of numbers on paper that don't affect a person's physical health or quality of life in the slightest count as suffering. Of course they don't. For a poor person, either jobless or reporting to a low-paid job that exposes them to potentially bankrupting covid infections, with their kids at home, to worry about the upset of the perpetually bailed-out wealthy is like a beaten, starved dog outside on a winter night worrying that its owner might miss their favorite TV show.
  • s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I have seen a ton of happy and o see the economy crash for just this reason. For example, they want the housing and stock market to crash so that there is more parity between the haves and the have nots. If you are low income worker in California, every homeowner with a 401k is Richie rich.
    • blueline 6y ago
      >If you are low income worker in California, every homeowner with a 401k is Richie rich. how many low income workers do you actually know and talk to in california?
      • s1artibartfast 6y ago
• bleepblorp 6y ago
  HN needs a stronger policy against posting COVID-19 misinformation. This kind of conspiracy mongering is actively harmful to efforts to manage the public health crisis. Allowing COVID-19 conspiracy theories to spread will contribute to a higher death toll and encourages irrational reactions to public health interventions. Fact-free claims that physical distancing measures are part of some kind of leftist conspiracy to "see the economy fail" are highly socially corrosive and should not be given a platform here or anywhere else. This kind of material should be flagged and promptly deleted by HN staff when it appears.
• bachmeier 6y ago
  > Wanting to see the economy fail to punish rich people and corporations. That's a nutty take, since (a) it's been those at the low-end of the income scale hit the hardest, and (b) it's dishonest to claim lockdowns are purely a matter of politics, because we know they slow the spread of the virus. Bars are open around the country. I don't think the few remaining lockdowns are our biggest problem.
  • trhway 6y ago
    > Bars are open around the country. pointing to bars instead of churches in such contexts clearly shows political undercurrent, and you can see it everywhere. > I think we’ve effectively lost our minds on covid the reaction to Covid has never been rational. Instead it has been clearly following the 5 stage model of pure emotional reaction: denial, anger (strict lockdowns when they started), negotiation (rules for staged opening, masks, etc.), depression (entering right now, and we'll get fully into it with the second wave), and several months down the road we'll get to acceptance.
• UncleOxidant 6y ago
  > 2) spiteful. Wanting to see the economy fail to punish rich people and corporations. It'd be cool if the rich and corporations were actually punished, but so far they've made out like bandits during the pandemic.
• clairity 6y ago
  > "people are some combination of 1) scared, and 2) spiteful. Wanting to see the economy fail to punish rich people and corporations." that's an odd conception of what's going on. because they control capital, the well off among us (esp. in CA) imposed restrictions of movement/congregation and economic travesty upon the rest to decrease by tenths of a percent their risk of contracting and dying from covid, while largely ignoring those same restrictions for themselves. this is a serious, existential concern for our democratic republic, and an extremely poor allocation of resources from an economic perspective. the mode of transmission is straightforward: prolonged exposure to the exhaust of others (not the air, not surfaces, not touching, but breathing exhaust). we could have gotten the same level of mitigation for much less intervention by radically simplifying messaging for the public (hospitals and care facilities should have more elaborate mitigations) down to one simple rule: "distance indoors around strangers, and where you can't, wear a mask." but that didn't serve media or political interests (as expressors of the wealthy) well, so we have the mess we're in.