5 ms·

You criticized the commenter for objecting to lockdown. Why are the people you refer to dying? Is it possible it is because they aren't quarantining and staying

You criticized the commenter for objecting to lockdown. Why are the people you refer to dying? Is it possible it is because they aren't quarantining and staying at home?

acdha 6y ago
Until we have an effective prevention or cure, we have to reduce the chances of catching it, especially during the period where people are spreading it before they show symptoms. Since it spreads mostly from prolonged time breathing the same air, the point of lockdowns is preventing those situations from arising. Quarantining after you become symptomatic is too late and without legal weight too many people won’t avoid situations to stop community spread. That matters because there are things that you have to do, and you don’t have a way to control other people’s decisions. Closing high-risk recreational activities means that someone can go shopping with less risk because the people near them weren’t hanging out at the bar the night before.
kube-system 6y ago
The vast majority of Americans live in households where someone has to physically go to work in order to feed their family. Many others must leave their homes to purchase basic essentials. The value of a lockdown isn't in changing the behavior of those who are already voluntarily avoiding exposure -- its value is in changing the behavior of those who inconsiderately spread it to others during their essential travels outside of their house.
- collyw 6y ago
  That's strange because Argentina and Peru stayed locked down for months over their winter, yet there case numbers kept rising.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Doesn't sound strange to me. Rising case numbers is 100% a likely (or even expected) condition under a successful lockdown. 1. We have no idea what a null hypothesis scenario would be in Argentina or Peru. 2. Regardless, "flattening the curve" is more of a statement about the first or second derivative of case numbers.
  - acdha 6y ago
    1. What would the rate have been without doing anything? 2. Do you have data showing how effective the lockdowns were? Did they have a problem with compliance? Here’s a recent publication which could inform your opinion - note especially the part about employment forcing people to leave their houses to work: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32328-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... “ Latin American countries have long had some of the most scarring income inequalities in the world, and they are predicted to worsen. The informal labour market is huge, making up 54% of all work across the region (up to 70% in some countries, such as Peru). Informal workers have little access to social protection and have no choice but to continue to work daily to earn a living. The result is that their capability to follow quarantine and social distancing measures is limited. Informal workers also have less access to health care.” … “The increases in obesity and diabetes in Latin America are surely major contributors to the high mortality rates. In Mexico and Chile, more than 75% of the female population is overweight. Nutrient-poor and energy-dense processed foods are often the only type of food readily affordable to the most disadvantaged people. Although some countries, including Brazil and Costa Rica, have a universal health-care system, most Latin American countries have large gaps in accessibility caused mainly by out-of-pocket health expenditure, which is 34% of total health spending.”
    - collyw 6y ago
      It's difficult to say because most places did lockdown. Everyone expected Sweden to Spiral out of control but they didn't. Neil Fergusons models predicted an order of magnitude more deaths there (https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/ https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-...) . "Sweden had more deaths than Norway and Finland" yes they screwed up sending people to care homes when it first hit - over half of their deaths occurred there. like most of the countries that got hit early. Plus a lot of dark skinned immigrants (vitamin D levels have been shown to be a big factor). Those alone account for a lot of the difference. There is little reason to believe that lockdown had a very positive effect.
      - acdha 6y ago
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    Victoria, Australia had a lockdown that lasted for only 3 months and completely eradicated covid from the state.
    - collyw 6y ago
      Hypothesis about why Asia and nearby countries got affected so much less than the West, with what seems to be a decent data analysis. TLDR, exposure to bats in these countries and travel between them. https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?lang=en https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?...
      - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
        Victoria had an exploding case count that was set to match the rest of the world before the government did a hard lockdown. And not just the feel good ones they do in the US, the lockdown meant you could only leave the house for 1 hour a day for exercise within a 5km radius and anyone who absolutely had to leave the house had to show proof and wear a mask. The case count fell sharply only after these measures were put in place.
bluGill 6y ago
Nobody can 100% stay home. The more every does though the better the less than 100% works. When someone getting their prescriptions refills gets it they are just as sick as someone who goes to a bar and gets it. The only difference is someone who goes to a bar is out a lot more and so has a higher chance of getting it.

You criticized the commenter for objecting to lockdown. Why are the people you refer to dying? Is it possible it is because they aren't quarantining and staying at home?

acdha 6y ago

Until we have an effective prevention or cure, we have to reduce the chances of catching it, especially during the period where people are spreading it before they show symptoms. Since it spreads mostly from prolonged time breathing the same air, the point of lockdowns is preventing those situations from arising. Quarantining after you become symptomatic is too late and without legal weight too many people won’t avoid situations to stop community spread. That matters because there are things that you have to do, and you don’t have a way to control other people’s decisions. Closing high-risk recreational activities means that someone can go shopping with less risk because the people near them weren’t hanging out at the bar the night before.

kube-system 6y ago

The vast majority of Americans live in households where someone has to physically go to work in order to feed their family. Many others must leave their homes to purchase basic essentials. The value of a lockdown isn't in changing the behavior of those who are already voluntarily avoiding exposure -- its value is in changing the behavior of those who inconsiderately spread it to others during their essential travels outside of their house.

collyw 6y ago
That's strange because Argentina and Peru stayed locked down for months over their winter, yet there case numbers kept rising.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Doesn't sound strange to me. Rising case numbers is 100% a likely (or even expected) condition under a successful lockdown. 1. We have no idea what a null hypothesis scenario would be in Argentina or Peru. 2. Regardless, "flattening the curve" is more of a statement about the first or second derivative of case numbers.
- acdha 6y ago
  1. What would the rate have been without doing anything? 2. Do you have data showing how effective the lockdowns were? Did they have a problem with compliance? Here’s a recent publication which could inform your opinion - note especially the part about employment forcing people to leave their houses to work: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32328-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... “ Latin American countries have long had some of the most scarring income inequalities in the world, and they are predicted to worsen. The informal labour market is huge, making up 54% of all work across the region (up to 70% in some countries, such as Peru). Informal workers have little access to social protection and have no choice but to continue to work daily to earn a living. The result is that their capability to follow quarantine and social distancing measures is limited. Informal workers also have less access to health care.” … “The increases in obesity and diabetes in Latin America are surely major contributors to the high mortality rates. In Mexico and Chile, more than 75% of the female population is overweight. Nutrient-poor and energy-dense processed foods are often the only type of food readily affordable to the most disadvantaged people. Although some countries, including Brazil and Costa Rica, have a universal health-care system, most Latin American countries have large gaps in accessibility caused mainly by out-of-pocket health expenditure, which is 34% of total health spending.”
  - collyw 6y ago
    It's difficult to say because most places did lockdown. Everyone expected Sweden to Spiral out of control but they didn't. Neil Fergusons models predicted an order of magnitude more deaths there (https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/ https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-...) . "Sweden had more deaths than Norway and Finland" yes they screwed up sending people to care homes when it first hit - over half of their deaths occurred there. like most of the countries that got hit early. Plus a lot of dark skinned immigrants (vitamin D levels have been shown to be a big factor). Those alone account for a lot of the difference. There is little reason to believe that lockdown had a very positive effect.
    - acdha 6y ago
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Victoria, Australia had a lockdown that lasted for only 3 months and completely eradicated covid from the state.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Hypothesis about why Asia and nearby countries got affected so much less than the West, with what seems to be a decent data analysis. TLDR, exposure to bats in these countries and travel between them. https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?lang=en https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?...
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
      Victoria had an exploding case count that was set to match the rest of the world before the government did a hard lockdown. And not just the feel good ones they do in the US, the lockdown meant you could only leave the house for 1 hour a day for exercise within a 5km radius and anyone who absolutely had to leave the house had to show proof and wear a mask. The case count fell sharply only after these measures were put in place.

bluGill 6y ago

Nobody can 100% stay home. The more every does though the better the less than 100% works. When someone getting their prescriptions refills gets it they are just as sick as someone who goes to a bar and gets it. The only difference is someone who goes to a bar is out a lot more and so has a higher chance of getting it.