9 ms·

Assuming you are really interested. Mostly because the world is not one-dimensional. "Hard lockdown" has drastic socio-economic implications. "No lockdown" h

by bipson 6y ago

Assuming you are really interested. Mostly because the world is not one-dimensional. "Hard lockdown" has drastic socio-economic implications. "No lockdown" has dramatic/catastrophic socio-economic implications. The easiest to understand: In very short time the ICUs are overrun and people die. A lot of people die. "Soft lockdown" depends on the people to play along. Which seems more difficult than the people in charge thought it would be (and some still don't believe). Notably I am not arguing here for what the "right" choice is. It is simply not that easy.

marketingPro 6y ago
Don't use words like "a lot". Is "a lot" 1% or 80%. Hard lockdown causes 100% to suffer, but we save the 1%. A soft lockdown causes the 100 to suffer, and we only save "flatten the curve" lives. Which according to NYT ventilator stats saves 12% of people. 1% times 12% is 0.12%. No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. As a note coronavirus is 4x more deadly than the yearly flu and kills the same demographic. Are we overreacting on a virus that is on the same order of magnitude as a flu?
- kube-system 6y ago
  With no intervention, healthy people start to die because they cannot receive medical care. There is a lot of COVID care going on in hospitals other than ventilation. Ventilators are somewhat of a last resort. We are on track for COVID to have 10x the deaths of the seasonal flu, and that is after the effects of the significant interventions that have happened here and around the globe.
- airstrike 6y ago
  > No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. This is incorrect. When hospitals are overrun, healthy people can't be treated and die. The old and obese die in higher proportions even when receiving treatment, but healthy young people often need treatment to survive.

9 ms·

Assuming you are really interested. Mostly because the world is not one-dimensional. "Hard lockdown" has drastic socio-economic implications. "No lockdown" h

by bipson 6y ago

marketingPro 6y ago
Don't use words like "a lot". Is "a lot" 1% or 80%. Hard lockdown causes 100% to suffer, but we save the 1%. A soft lockdown causes the 100 to suffer, and we only save "flatten the curve" lives. Which according to NYT ventilator stats saves 12% of people. 1% times 12% is 0.12%. No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. As a note coronavirus is 4x more deadly than the yearly flu and kills the same demographic. Are we overreacting on a virus that is on the same order of magnitude as a flu?
- kube-system 6y ago
  With no intervention, healthy people start to die because they cannot receive medical care. There is a lot of COVID care going on in hospitals other than ventilation. Ventilators are somewhat of a last resort. We are on track for COVID to have 10x the deaths of the seasonal flu, and that is after the effects of the significant interventions that have happened here and around the globe.
- airstrike 6y ago
  > No lockdown and 1% of old and obese people die. This is incorrect. When hospitals are overrun, healthy people can't be treated and die. The old and obese die in higher proportions even when receiving treatment, but healthy young people often need treatment to survive.