5 ms·

> By the time there were 50000 cases we had already lost any realistic chance of eradicating the virus. Disagree strongly. I am currently in Australia, which s

by titzer 6y ago

> By the time there were 50000 cases we had already lost any realistic chance of eradicating the virus. Disagree strongly. I am currently in Australia, which shut down early and has been serious about fighting this from the beginning, despite repeated outbreaks from international travel, most recently in Victoria, which prompted a hard and long shutdown...that worked. 27,000 total cases over the course of the entire pandemic. Less than 1,000 deaths. And all of the worst of that has been lapses in vigilance and mistakes. Those 50,000 worldwide cases were the seeds of the 34 million that have been confirmed. Every one of those hotspots could have been and should have been isolated and quarantined. We'd be through this if we had responded simultaneously, fast and hard. But no one was really prepared for what that shutdown meant or looked like. But now we are stuck with a persistent infection that just keeps getting worse. > At this point shutting things down causes more harm than good. And people then were saying that a shutdown would do more harm than good. I think a 3-4 week hard simultaneous worldwide lockdown would have stopped this in its tracks, but the logistics and necessity of that were absolutely not clear. Instead we were constantly one step behind, enacting half measures and wishful thinking based on past pandemics. Incredible that people said almost exactly the same thing 6 months ago and look how screwed we are. Now we are three steps behind and there is no putting this thing back in the bottle. We're boned. Millions more deaths are coming and the only hope of even remotely normal life now is a vaccine.

timr 6y ago
"Disagree strongly. I am currently in Australia, which shut down early and has been serious about fighting this from the beginning, despite repeated outbreaks from international travel, most recently in Victoria, which prompted a hard and long shutdown...that worked." Except that it didn't work. You did it once, and it came back. So now you're doing it again. And you'll keep doing it again and again, unless you plan on keeping Australia isolated from the world until a vaccine has been administered to some huge percentage of the world population. Even if you do keep Australia isolated, it's clearly not a cure, either: the current outbreak happened in spite of your country's travel ban. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the trade-offs involved here, but you have to start from facts.
- titzer 6y ago
  > Except that it didn't work. You did it once, Look, I know the comments section of hackernews is not going to contain a long, nuanced conversation about what did and did not work, and I probably overstated it "working", but let's be clear; the lockdown in Victoria absolutely brought the outbreak under control, from over 500 per day to now nearly zero. If you want to see graphs, please browse: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-data-reveals-how-covid-19-spreads-in-australia/12060704?nw=0 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-dat... It's been a long, hard slog. It sucks. Lockdowns aren't binary, and I hope I didn't represent them as so. Unfortunately they are only effective to the extent that they don't let infections slip through the cracks. To be effective, the actual numbers need to be low enough, and kept low enough, that contact tracing and quarantining work, so that the economy can function at all. That ship has sailed for America. It is sad. Victoria is an example of what happens when the thing gets out and starts spreading. Here in the ACT where I am, and the seat of government is, things are in much better shape, with only a few hundred cases overall through the pandemic, and a handful of deaths. A phased reopening has meant life here has gone back to nearer to normal, and even mask wearing isn't required. Canberra has been very lucky and I can actually live my life like the virus doesn't exist, because right now, right here, it pretty much doesn't. But I can't stay here forever, I'll be out in the wild with the rest of ya soon enough. Thanks for letting the virus run rampant over my homeland. Cheers!
  - timr 6y ago
    I never claimed that Australia didn't bring cases down. It did. Then cases shot back up. Like I said: it "worked" once, then it came back, and now you're doing it again. So it didn't actually work...it just postponed things for a while. We've eliminated one human virus in all of history, and it took two hundred years and a vaccine. The final push took a really effective vaccine, and decades of intensive effort to weed out the last cases. You're not going to eliminate this one by locking people in their homes for a few months.
    - titzer 6y ago
      > So it didn't actually work...it just postponed things for a while. Lockdowns are not a permanent solution, duh. Yeah, of course they postpone things for a while, if the virus is still spreading and the population is just as susceptible. I thought that part was clear to people from the outset, but apparently not. Lockdowns buy time, slow or hopefully even stop the spread, identify and isolate cases in order to focus efforts, and then quarantine those people so it does not get out of hand. If you don't isolate the virus during the lockdown then it was pointless as it will just escape again. Unfortunately the logistics of doing that are pretty involved and it takes a serious effort and little to no defection from people escaping quarantines. It helps a lot when political leaders understand and explain the basic strategy instead of being more concerned about their political fortunes and the fragility of the economy and calling it a hoax. Mixed messages confuse people. The US government completely fumbled that one. You want to protect people's jobs? Then do it. Provide unemployment benefits, provide wage subsidies, provide support to businesses so they don't go under. Impose a rent moratorium so people aren't evicted. Banks will not go under because of a rent moratorium. The financial system doesn't crash because of a rent moratorium. The financial system will crash if millions default, though. But instead America's political leaders chose poorly and did none of those things, or did them poorly. They bailed out absolutely the wrong people. Instead everyone's been in a rush to open everything back up, because fuck it, or something. And the defections, the arguing, the denial. Unfortunately along with "you can't lock us in here forever"--a semi-reasonable argument which I will generously spot you--there are lots of irresponsible people out there who can't even do the bare minimum to slow or stop the spread, or who just plain don't care, who rationalize away hundreds of thousands of people dying, because fuck it, or something. So we are in a situation where these people spread the virus everywhere. And every step of the way there were so many voices of dissent like this that sound subtly different on the surface but all pretty much amount to "fuck it, that sounds hard". And yeah, now it is exponentially harder to fix this problem. And yes it's still a global pandemic killing thousands and millions of people, despite how tired we are all of the whole mess, despite how our news cycle ADD attention span. And it will absolutely keep getting worse. > You're not going to eliminate this one by locking people in their homes for a few months. Like I said, that alone wouldn't have been sufficient. But anyway, not now. It's far too late for America. It would have worked in February to get this under control, get effective testing and tracing programs in place, and keep numbers from spiking. But now the massive number of tests being done just finds this blasted thing is everywhere; a total failure of containment.
giantDinosaur 6y ago
Not really. The IFR has trended downwards fairly dramatically over time - it's the rapidity and novelty of the spread which is driving deaths in an extremely (and I don't use that word lightly, it is extreme) stratified by age manner. If the vaccine doesn't work, you'd seriously never consider going back to normal ever, in your entire lifetime? That's absurd. It's rather concerning that people like you are pinning all your hopes on a vaccine. I don't know about you, but at some point living a life with such restrictions and a complete halt or threat to halt many of the things that make life interesting becomes a trade-off that's not worth making. If a vaccine does not work to protect the elderly particularly well, would you seriously be willing to close international borders for the next 5-10 years, for example? Even worse, since there's zero endpoint to anything if you are unwilling to tolerate life as normal without a vaccine, why not just extend all restrictions indefinitely?
- adrianN 6y ago
  Chances are pretty good that at least one of the vaccines we currently have under development will work decently well. Probably well enough to reduce the risk to be comparable with Influenza. I don't think discussions about a vaccine-free world are particularly productive right now.
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    While I hope that's true, it's never a good idea to plan exclusively for the best case scenario. There's a lot riding on your 'probably' when it's considered by many to be the only viable way forward.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      I don't see any benefit in discussing what to do without a vaccine right now. There is no time pressure. We'll have plenty of time to figure things out if the vaccines turn out not to work.
      - giantDinosaur 6y ago

by titzer 6y ago

timr 6y ago

"Disagree strongly. I am currently in Australia, which shut down early and has been serious about fighting this from the beginning, despite repeated outbreaks from international travel, most recently in Victoria, which prompted a hard and long shutdown...that worked." Except that it didn't work. You did it once, and it came back. So now you're doing it again. And you'll keep doing it again and again, unless you plan on keeping Australia isolated from the world until a vaccine has been administered to some huge percentage of the world population. Even if you do keep Australia isolated, it's clearly not a cure, either: the current outbreak happened in spite of your country's travel ban. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the trade-offs involved here, but you have to start from facts.

titzer 6y ago
> Except that it didn't work. You did it once, Look, I know the comments section of hackernews is not going to contain a long, nuanced conversation about what did and did not work, and I probably overstated it "working", but let's be clear; the lockdown in Victoria absolutely brought the outbreak under control, from over 500 per day to now nearly zero. If you want to see graphs, please browse: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-data-reveals-how-covid-19-spreads-in-australia/12060704?nw=0 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-dat... It's been a long, hard slog. It sucks. Lockdowns aren't binary, and I hope I didn't represent them as so. Unfortunately they are only effective to the extent that they don't let infections slip through the cracks. To be effective, the actual numbers need to be low enough, and kept low enough, that contact tracing and quarantining work, so that the economy can function at all. That ship has sailed for America. It is sad. Victoria is an example of what happens when the thing gets out and starts spreading. Here in the ACT where I am, and the seat of government is, things are in much better shape, with only a few hundred cases overall through the pandemic, and a handful of deaths. A phased reopening has meant life here has gone back to nearer to normal, and even mask wearing isn't required. Canberra has been very lucky and I can actually live my life like the virus doesn't exist, because right now, right here, it pretty much doesn't. But I can't stay here forever, I'll be out in the wild with the rest of ya soon enough. Thanks for letting the virus run rampant over my homeland. Cheers!
- timr 6y ago
  I never claimed that Australia didn't bring cases down. It did. Then cases shot back up. Like I said: it "worked" once, then it came back, and now you're doing it again. So it didn't actually work...it just postponed things for a while. We've eliminated one human virus in all of history, and it took two hundred years and a vaccine. The final push took a really effective vaccine, and decades of intensive effort to weed out the last cases. You're not going to eliminate this one by locking people in their homes for a few months.
  - titzer 6y ago
    > So it didn't actually work...it just postponed things for a while. Lockdowns are not a permanent solution, duh. Yeah, of course they postpone things for a while, if the virus is still spreading and the population is just as susceptible. I thought that part was clear to people from the outset, but apparently not. Lockdowns buy time, slow or hopefully even stop the spread, identify and isolate cases in order to focus efforts, and then quarantine those people so it does not get out of hand. If you don't isolate the virus during the lockdown then it was pointless as it will just escape again. Unfortunately the logistics of doing that are pretty involved and it takes a serious effort and little to no defection from people escaping quarantines. It helps a lot when political leaders understand and explain the basic strategy instead of being more concerned about their political fortunes and the fragility of the economy and calling it a hoax. Mixed messages confuse people. The US government completely fumbled that one. You want to protect people's jobs? Then do it. Provide unemployment benefits, provide wage subsidies, provide support to businesses so they don't go under. Impose a rent moratorium so people aren't evicted. Banks will not go under because of a rent moratorium. The financial system doesn't crash because of a rent moratorium. The financial system will crash if millions default, though. But instead America's political leaders chose poorly and did none of those things, or did them poorly. They bailed out absolutely the wrong people. Instead everyone's been in a rush to open everything back up, because fuck it, or something. And the defections, the arguing, the denial. Unfortunately along with "you can't lock us in here forever"--a semi-reasonable argument which I will generously spot you--there are lots of irresponsible people out there who can't even do the bare minimum to slow or stop the spread, or who just plain don't care, who rationalize away hundreds of thousands of people dying, because fuck it, or something. So we are in a situation where these people spread the virus everywhere. And every step of the way there were so many voices of dissent like this that sound subtly different on the surface but all pretty much amount to "fuck it, that sounds hard". And yeah, now it is exponentially harder to fix this problem. And yes it's still a global pandemic killing thousands and millions of people, despite how tired we are all of the whole mess, despite how our news cycle ADD attention span. And it will absolutely keep getting worse. > You're not going to eliminate this one by locking people in their homes for a few months. Like I said, that alone wouldn't have been sufficient. But anyway, not now. It's far too late for America. It would have worked in February to get this under control, get effective testing and tracing programs in place, and keep numbers from spiking. But now the massive number of tests being done just finds this blasted thing is everywhere; a total failure of containment.

giantDinosaur 6y ago

Not really. The IFR has trended downwards fairly dramatically over time - it's the rapidity and novelty of the spread which is driving deaths in an extremely (and I don't use that word lightly, it is extreme) stratified by age manner. If the vaccine doesn't work, you'd seriously never consider going back to normal ever, in your entire lifetime? That's absurd. It's rather concerning that people like you are pinning all your hopes on a vaccine. I don't know about you, but at some point living a life with such restrictions and a complete halt or threat to halt many of the things that make life interesting becomes a trade-off that's not worth making. If a vaccine does not work to protect the elderly particularly well, would you seriously be willing to close international borders for the next 5-10 years, for example? Even worse, since there's zero endpoint to anything if you are unwilling to tolerate life as normal without a vaccine, why not just extend all restrictions indefinitely?

adrianN 6y ago
Chances are pretty good that at least one of the vaccines we currently have under development will work decently well. Probably well enough to reduce the risk to be comparable with Influenza. I don't think discussions about a vaccine-free world are particularly productive right now.
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  While I hope that's true, it's never a good idea to plan exclusively for the best case scenario. There's a lot riding on your 'probably' when it's considered by many to be the only viable way forward.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I don't see any benefit in discussing what to do without a vaccine right now. There is no time pressure. We'll have plenty of time to figure things out if the vaccines turn out not to work.
    - giantDinosaur 6y ago