4 ms·

We have seen evidence that the virus kills. That alone warrants action. In the beginning, the general lockdowns were fine, simply because we didn't know enough

We have seen evidence that the virus kills. That alone warrants action. In the beginning, the general lockdowns were fine, simply because we didn't know enough yet to come up with better solutions, and frankly didn't really have the time to rectify this before taking any action. Now whether or not to lockdown and what to lockdown can be applied more fine-grained. Of course, everything is still in flux, and some decisions will turn out to be wrong later. The entire response is trial-by-error, for lack of alternatives In regards to potential long term effects, those should be a concern as well when making decisions, yes. Not the only concern of course, but not something to be ignored either.

logicchains 6y ago
>That alone warrants action. In only warrants action if we're sure the negative consequences of the action won't be greater than the negative consequences of the viral deaths.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  Interesting. On one hand we have clear and ample evidence that the virus kills, and even more so when the health system of a country gets overloaded. On the other hand we have a bunch of hypotheses arguing that lockdowns kill, etc, but no clear evidence for that yet. E.g. suicide rates are up on some locales like Japan and the UK, but down in others like Germany. (I am not disputing theses hypotheses as false, btw, as there is ample evidence that in order situations of e.g. economic turndown or e.g. isolation severe adverse effects occurred/occur; tho it remains to be seen what damage there actually will be) Given how you seem all about the evidence, this should give you pause. I agree that the effects of measures have to be weighted against the good of measures - namely "curve flattening". However, I still do think that the initial lockdowns were warranted as a short term measure, and that future, more fine-grained (hotspot) lockdowns are warranted. Then there are other measures, such as facemasks... some people dispute the effectiveness... But really, that's a no-brainer now; even if it turns out the masks are not effective at all, the worst that came out of it really is mild discomfort wearing them (exceptions for medical conditions of course apply) - and some morons shouting at each other for either wearing a mask or not wearing a mask.

logicchains 6y ago

>That alone warrants action. In only warrants action if we're sure the negative consequences of the action won't be greater than the negative consequences of the viral deaths.

rndgermandude 6y ago
Interesting. On one hand we have clear and ample evidence that the virus kills, and even more so when the health system of a country gets overloaded. On the other hand we have a bunch of hypotheses arguing that lockdowns kill, etc, but no clear evidence for that yet. E.g. suicide rates are up on some locales like Japan and the UK, but down in others like Germany. (I am not disputing theses hypotheses as false, btw, as there is ample evidence that in order situations of e.g. economic turndown or e.g. isolation severe adverse effects occurred/occur; tho it remains to be seen what damage there actually will be) Given how you seem all about the evidence, this should give you pause. I agree that the effects of measures have to be weighted against the good of measures - namely "curve flattening". However, I still do think that the initial lockdowns were warranted as a short term measure, and that future, more fine-grained (hotspot) lockdowns are warranted. Then there are other measures, such as facemasks... some people dispute the effectiveness... But really, that's a no-brainer now; even if it turns out the masks are not effective at all, the worst that came out of it really is mild discomfort wearing them (exceptions for medical conditions of course apply) - and some morons shouting at each other for either wearing a mask or not wearing a mask.