3 ms·

I'm sure there's a matter of article length if every claim requires writing extensively about a country's policy. You can look up articles on your own to corrob

by lhorie 6y ago

I'm sure there's a matter of article length if every claim requires writing extensively about a country's policy. You can look up articles on your own to corroborate these claims. For example, Brazil's Bolsonaro's stance was pretty much a mirror of the US response (down to the president downplaying the seriousness of the problem and subsequently getting infected and all) Canada provides another interesting data point. They have very strict quarantine policies for incoming travelers, but now that domestic flights are at full capacity again, schools are reopening and the general public is getting more lax, they're seeing an uptick in cases again.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
There are certainly examples of countries that both had a lot of deaths and didn't have very strict responses. But the list also includes Spain and the UK, which had long and strict lockdowns - Spain kept kids locked indoors for 6 weeks!
- lhorie 6y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't refute the claim that not taking the necessary precautions leads to worse outcomes. What the Spain/UK cases suggest is that lack of lockdown policies aren't the only leading factors to the spread of the disease. This is why I think the Canada case is interesting: yes the government tells travelers to quarantine under the risk of a million dollar fine, but go to a park now and 80% of people aren't wearing masks despite reports of people breaking quarantine. So clearly, a dissonance between policy and what's going on on the ground can have a non-negligible effect.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Again, my concern is that this claim is so underspecified that no data could refute it. No matter which countries achieve better or worse outcomes, you can (and people do) define whatever the countries with better outcomes did to be the necessary precautions. Maybe a concrete example would help express what I'm getting at here. If Brazil saw a rapid improvement over the next month, would you consider that a refutation of the claim, or would you conclude that they must have started taking the necessary precautions?
    - lhorie 6y ago
      > would you conclude that they must have started taking the necessary precautions? Well funny you asked, because this is exactly what has been happening. Much like in the US, due to the double-down on the president's part on his "just a little flu" characterization of covid, brazilian regional governments are taking matters into their own hands. So we can expect a similar curve as the US, as state measures slowly kick into full gear to contain the spread and as people scramble to deal with the economic impact in their lives, negating the impact of policies. We're seeing poorer areas getting impacted more severely, much like it has been documented in the US as well. On a more general level, it isn't particularly relevant what factors might be a confirmation or refutation of a claim in a hypothetical scenario, because by definition, hypotheticals are not data. Of course, if hypothetically, the US suddenly registered a dramatic decrease in new cases of Covid without any intentional changes in containment strategy, then it would behoove to re-evaluate previous assumptions and policies. But since that hasn't happened, we make judgments based on what we see is actually happening worldwide instead. As for the definition of "necessary precautions", my understanding is that it's not some nebulous handwaving, but rather, it's the WHO guidelines that everyone references.

by lhorie 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

There are certainly examples of countries that both had a lot of deaths and didn't have very strict responses. But the list also includes Spain and the UK, which had long and strict lockdowns - Spain kept kids locked indoors for 6 weeks!

lhorie 6y ago
Sure, but that doesn't refute the claim that not taking the necessary precautions leads to worse outcomes. What the Spain/UK cases suggest is that lack of lockdown policies aren't the only leading factors to the spread of the disease. This is why I think the Canada case is interesting: yes the government tells travelers to quarantine under the risk of a million dollar fine, but go to a park now and 80% of people aren't wearing masks despite reports of people breaking quarantine. So clearly, a dissonance between policy and what's going on on the ground can have a non-negligible effect.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Again, my concern is that this claim is so underspecified that no data could refute it. No matter which countries achieve better or worse outcomes, you can (and people do) define whatever the countries with better outcomes did to be the necessary precautions. Maybe a concrete example would help express what I'm getting at here. If Brazil saw a rapid improvement over the next month, would you consider that a refutation of the claim, or would you conclude that they must have started taking the necessary precautions?
  - lhorie 6y ago
    > would you conclude that they must have started taking the necessary precautions? Well funny you asked, because this is exactly what has been happening. Much like in the US, due to the double-down on the president's part on his "just a little flu" characterization of covid, brazilian regional governments are taking matters into their own hands. So we can expect a similar curve as the US, as state measures slowly kick into full gear to contain the spread and as people scramble to deal with the economic impact in their lives, negating the impact of policies. We're seeing poorer areas getting impacted more severely, much like it has been documented in the US as well. On a more general level, it isn't particularly relevant what factors might be a confirmation or refutation of a claim in a hypothetical scenario, because by definition, hypotheticals are not data. Of course, if hypothetically, the US suddenly registered a dramatic decrease in new cases of Covid without any intentional changes in containment strategy, then it would behoove to re-evaluate previous assumptions and policies. But since that hasn't happened, we make judgments based on what we see is actually happening worldwide instead. As for the definition of "necessary precautions", my understanding is that it's not some nebulous handwaving, but rather, it's the WHO guidelines that everyone references.