3 ms·

> I think an argument can be made the government ordered lockdowns (stay at home / shelter in place) orders were appropriate in March when we knew much less abo

> I think an argument can be made the government ordered lockdowns (stay at home / shelter in place) orders were appropriate in March when we knew much less about who was most vulnerable, and did not have a well vetted treatment protocol / decision tree or any known therapeutics. Sure. Lockdowns bought us time. > Forced mandatory lockdowns today would be unethical and actually counter-productive. Given our vastly increased knowledge of the highly stratified risk profile of SARS-CoV-2, the public health case cannot be ethically made to forcibly confine the general population to their homes; separating them from their livelihoods, their community, their ordinary healthcare, and their mental and physical wellness routines. I mean, partly. We know that sticking to outdoors, wearing masks, etc. helps a lot. So we should try to avoid situations such as offices with central AC, indoor restaurants, indoor gyms, etc. That is not confining people to their homes, just using what we've learned so far to reduce infection rates in the least painful way.

timr 6y ago
"I mean, partly. We know that sticking to outdoors, wearing masks, etc. helps a lot. So we should try to avoid situations such as offices with central AC, indoor restaurants, indoor gyms, etc." We don't "know" any of this, except in the sense that it gets repeated a lot, uncritically. The actual published data is mainly anecdotal and/or ambiguous. Consider restaurants -- South Korea still doesn't consider them to be high-risk facilities, and they're largely open: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200819005400320 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200819005400320 That case, in particular, is enlightening about the quality of the data: they blame the transmission on aerosols, but can't rule out droplet or surface contamination, either. It's a judgment call. Most of these stories are like this. The famous "Chinese restaurant" case-study that is cited all over the place to justify shutting down restaurants presents a grand total of nine infected (even though 73 "close contacts" in the restaurant were not infected), of which three may have possibly been infected at home: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article Then you have studies like this, which suggest a fairly low attack rate (3.5%), even if you're sitting right next to an infected passenger on a train, for hours: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1057/5877944 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... The authors characterize this risk as "high"...but is it, really? I mean, clearly, being in a sealed tube next to someone for hours increases the risk, but how far are we willing to go for a risk that can be characterized in fractions of a percent for face-to-face interactions that aren't measured in hours? I feel like people don't know these numbers, and most people would be shocked if they did.

timr 6y ago

"I mean, partly. We know that sticking to outdoors, wearing masks, etc. helps a lot. So we should try to avoid situations such as offices with central AC, indoor restaurants, indoor gyms, etc." We don't "know" any of this, except in the sense that it gets repeated a lot, uncritically. The actual published data is mainly anecdotal and/or ambiguous. Consider restaurants -- South Korea still doesn't consider them to be high-risk facilities, and they're largely open: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200819005400320 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200819005400320 That case, in particular, is enlightening about the quality of the data: they blame the transmission on aerosols, but can't rule out droplet or surface contamination, either. It's a judgment call. Most of these stories are like this. The famous "Chinese restaurant" case-study that is cited all over the place to justify shutting down restaurants presents a grand total of nine infected (even though 73 "close contacts" in the restaurant were not infected), of which three may have possibly been infected at home: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article Then you have studies like this, which suggest a fairly low attack rate (3.5%), even if you're sitting right next to an infected passenger on a train, for hours: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1057/5877944 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... The authors characterize this risk as "high"...but is it, really? I mean, clearly, being in a sealed tube next to someone for hours increases the risk, but how far are we willing to go for a risk that can be characterized in fractions of a percent for face-to-face interactions that aren't measured in hours? I feel like people don't know these numbers, and most people would be shocked if they did.