4 ms·

> government says it's the only option. Over here in the UK, the government was dragged into this with their feet kicking. The fact that we were slow to act to

> government says it's the only option. Over here in the UK, the government was dragged into this with their feet kicking. The fact that we were slow to act to stem the initial explosion of cases is the reason why a longer and more drastic lockdown was needed according to the modelling and borne out by data subsequently. Three weeks ago the UK government was warned to start re-imposing measures to stem the second wave. The government ignored this, and now this week they are again forced screaming and kicking into a new lockdown regime as COVID hospital admissions start rising to levels last seen in March.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Right, and it's this idea of "forced" that concerns me. Every country that imposes lockdowns on the premise that they were forced, that they didn't have a choice, they just had to stop the disease from spreading. But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading - in most countries, experts believe that there is no workable plan and the disease will spread for decades at least. So how can we be confident that lockdowns won't continue for a few years until they just become the status quo?
- csnover 6y ago
  > But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading What do you even mean by this? Ever since eradication failed, the plan in every country has been mass vaccination.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Mass vaccination isn't expected to stop the disease from spreading. I know some regions have made plans under the assumption that vaccines will eradicate the virus, but no experts that I'm aware of think that's likely. (Other countries have said that they're just going to be okay with whatever level of disease burden exists after a vaccine, which I think is a defensible plan.)
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Let's for a minute live in this world where mandating masks, social distancing, and business closures is not allowed because it's authoritarian and violates people's freedom. So what happens when the hypothetical COVID-2 comes around in a few years, which is 20x deadlier than this pandemic and kills people uniformly across age groups. What do we do? Do we just have to die, because heaven forbid we infringe on people's rights to go out to restaurants and buy their khakis? We can't make people wear masks, and we can't make them stay home? So everyone just gets the disease and a big proportion of the world just dies. This is what people want?? Honestly, I think we are lucky this one didn't turn out to be as deadly as it could have been. COVID should be a wake-up call, and it should cause us to come up with an actual pandemic plan--so that when a more deadly one comes, we can shut up and save lives rather than argue about whether someone has a constitutional right to get their nails done without wearing a mask.
  - makomk 6y ago
    A hypothetical Covid-2 which is 20x deadlier than this pandemic and kills across all age groups would be a really good candidate to contain via contact tracing well before it reached the point where we needed mass lockdowns - assuming that Covid-19 hasn't totally destroyed trust in the scientific and medical establishments by that point. Remember, 20x deadlier means a lot more people showing up in hospitals, which means a much higher proportion of cases can be detected early on in the pandemic without needing mass testing. Covid-19's fatality rate is probably close to optimal for causing the most damage overall.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Right, and it's this idea of "forced" that concerns me. Every country that imposes lockdowns on the premise that they were forced, that they didn't have a choice, they just had to stop the disease from spreading. But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading - in most countries, experts believe that there is no workable plan and the disease will spread for decades at least. So how can we be confident that lockdowns won't continue for a few years until they just become the status quo?

csnover 6y ago
> But very few countries have indicated they have a plan for how to permanently stop the disease from spreading What do you even mean by this? Ever since eradication failed, the plan in every country has been mass vaccination.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Mass vaccination isn't expected to stop the disease from spreading. I know some regions have made plans under the assumption that vaccines will eradicate the virus, but no experts that I'm aware of think that's likely. (Other countries have said that they're just going to be okay with whatever level of disease burden exists after a vaccine, which I think is a defensible plan.)
ryandrake 6y ago
Let's for a minute live in this world where mandating masks, social distancing, and business closures is not allowed because it's authoritarian and violates people's freedom. So what happens when the hypothetical COVID-2 comes around in a few years, which is 20x deadlier than this pandemic and kills people uniformly across age groups. What do we do? Do we just have to die, because heaven forbid we infringe on people's rights to go out to restaurants and buy their khakis? We can't make people wear masks, and we can't make them stay home? So everyone just gets the disease and a big proportion of the world just dies. This is what people want?? Honestly, I think we are lucky this one didn't turn out to be as deadly as it could have been. COVID should be a wake-up call, and it should cause us to come up with an actual pandemic plan--so that when a more deadly one comes, we can shut up and save lives rather than argue about whether someone has a constitutional right to get their nails done without wearing a mask.
- makomk 6y ago
  A hypothetical Covid-2 which is 20x deadlier than this pandemic and kills across all age groups would be a really good candidate to contain via contact tracing well before it reached the point where we needed mass lockdowns - assuming that Covid-19 hasn't totally destroyed trust in the scientific and medical establishments by that point. Remember, 20x deadlier means a lot more people showing up in hospitals, which means a much higher proportion of cases can be detected early on in the pandemic without needing mass testing. Covid-19's fatality rate is probably close to optimal for causing the most damage overall.