4 ms·

The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work

by matz1 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago
Lockdowns do 100% work, if you stay inside you literally cannot catch a respiratory illness. You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. Non-compliance however kneecaps the ability of lockdowns to be effective, leaving you in a worst-of-all-worlds situation with a damaged economy and a largely unaffected disease curve. I would say the better way to frame that is: - "lockdowns only work if you actually take them seriously" (as evidenced by countries that did: NZ, TW, CN, AU -- look at their graphs [1], they work). - and "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve sufficient results." [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
- matz1 6y ago
  >You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end Thats why it wouldn't work. You want everyone to stay inside for 3 weeks.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- roca 6y ago
  > "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve reasonable results." Even so, Sweden doesn't prove this. They have had lockdowns, e.g. severe limits on social gatherings. You can only say they haven't had lockdowns if you take the pedantic view that "it's not a lockdown if it's not legally enforced, even if everyone follows your rules". Also, arguably the excess deaths in March/April (comparing to Nordic neighbours especially) and the surging cases now are not "reasonable results".
- CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago
  And if we blast everyone to the moon, that'd theoretically fix it too. But if we're talking about actual realistic options, you can't lock down hard enough consistently enough for long enough across a wide enough swath of the planet for it to really work. And no, that isn't because some small amount of "selfish" people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies - It's because there's a practical limit on how effective they can be.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    The graphs are very clear, there are examples of countries in which it worked great. > "people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies" The "but muh freedom" argument is so tired. If folks had stayed in for a few weeks at the start, it would be substantially over now as evidenced by all the countries in which it's substantially over. Instead by going out like petulant children who won't be told no, we have a giant flaming disaster. That would be an example of 'disagree and commit.' I'm open to the idea that a lockdown would work, and I'm also open to the idea it's not necessary because some subset of restriction is enough, or because we're willing to pay the cost of excess mortality during vaccine development -- the one argument I'm not open to is "but muh freedom." I'm sorry that reality doesn't always map to the libertarian ideal. Sometimes you have to compromise temporarily for the greater good. For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom. [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
    - matz1 6y ago
      Not worth the risk/harm due to lockdown, at least for this virus. I'm still open to the idea that a lockdown would work but not for this virus. >For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom You mean for your greater good because it definitely not for my greater good.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Had we gotten it over and done with your freedom would have been materially improved over the subsequent months would it not? You're unhappy with this awful compromise, as everyone should be -- caused by a refusal to adhere to either opening the economy and paying the cost, or to a proper lockdown. And you should be upset about it, I am, it's been an abject failure. We've compromised so much, but just not quite enough, in part because of the uneven distribution of compliance. That has led to huge cost for zero reward.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. In other words, the illness will die out, unless it doesn't. Here's some practical experience with this approach: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/ An outbreak of common colds at an Antarctic base after seventeen weeks of complete isolation.
  - roca 6y ago
    More relevant practical experience: NZ's lockdown shows that we were able to eliminate COVID19 within the country. Six weeks of a pretty hard lockdown followed by six more weeks of gradual relaxing of restrictions.
- worker767424 6y ago
  They are very effective, but a shared HVAC system could also infect an entire building, and it might not happen quickly enough for 3 weeks to be "safe." They were effective in NZ, but NZ is still getting new cases, so it's remarkably hard to get 100%.
  - roca 6y ago
    Having zero cases all the time is remarkably hard but it's also not that important. A lockdown-to-elimination strategy is working well if you can keep driving the number down to zero with low restrictions in place. In NZ it is working well.
  - thisrod 6y ago
    > NZ is still getting new cases In fairness, those are due to quarantine failures, which were anticipated and planned for. Why would a region with one person per square kilometer plan to quarantine people in a crowded hotel in the centre of a crowded city, and respond to the inevitable outbreaks which potentially expose millions of people to the virus, when you could divert all the jets to Woomera and stick everyone in tents for 14 days? That's a question which those responsible are trying hard to ignore.
- quicklyfrozen 6y ago
  I'm not sure there's any possible way to achieve a real lockdown in the US when half the population doesn't even believe in the severity of the virus. How would you enforce it? And a strict lockdown would require most people to have enough supplies in place to last the few weeks, which is likely an impossible demand for our supply chain to meet, and also impossible for those who live paycheck to paycheck.
mcguire 6y ago
Obvious how? It does not logically follow.

The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work

by matz1 6y ago

The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work

Lockdowns do 100% work, if you stay inside you literally cannot catch a respiratory illness. You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. Non-compliance however kneecaps the ability of lockdowns to be effective, leaving you in a worst-of-all-worlds situation with a damaged economy and a largely unaffected disease curve. I would say the better way to frame that is: - "lockdowns only work if you actually take them seriously" (as evidenced by countries that did: NZ, TW, CN, AU -- look at their graphs [1], they work). - and "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve sufficient results." [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...

matz1 6y ago
>You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end Thats why it wouldn't work. You want everyone to stay inside for 3 weeks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
roca 6y ago
> "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve reasonable results." Even so, Sweden doesn't prove this. They have had lockdowns, e.g. severe limits on social gatherings. You can only say they haven't had lockdowns if you take the pedantic view that "it's not a lockdown if it's not legally enforced, even if everyone follows your rules". Also, arguably the excess deaths in March/April (comparing to Nordic neighbours especially) and the surging cases now are not "reasonable results".
CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago
And if we blast everyone to the moon, that'd theoretically fix it too. But if we're talking about actual realistic options, you can't lock down hard enough consistently enough for long enough across a wide enough swath of the planet for it to really work. And no, that isn't because some small amount of "selfish" people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies - It's because there's a practical limit on how effective they can be.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  The graphs are very clear, there are examples of countries in which it worked great. > "people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies" The "but muh freedom" argument is so tired. If folks had stayed in for a few weeks at the start, it would be substantially over now as evidenced by all the countries in which it's substantially over. Instead by going out like petulant children who won't be told no, we have a giant flaming disaster. That would be an example of 'disagree and commit.' I'm open to the idea that a lockdown would work, and I'm also open to the idea it's not necessary because some subset of restriction is enough, or because we're willing to pay the cost of excess mortality during vaccine development -- the one argument I'm not open to is "but muh freedom." I'm sorry that reality doesn't always map to the libertarian ideal. Sometimes you have to compromise temporarily for the greater good. For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom. [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
  - matz1 6y ago
    Not worth the risk/harm due to lockdown, at least for this virus. I'm still open to the idea that a lockdown would work but not for this virus. >For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom You mean for your greater good because it definitely not for my greater good.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Had we gotten it over and done with your freedom would have been materially improved over the subsequent months would it not? You're unhappy with this awful compromise, as everyone should be -- caused by a refusal to adhere to either opening the economy and paying the cost, or to a proper lockdown. And you should be upset about it, I am, it's been an abject failure. We've compromised so much, but just not quite enough, in part because of the uneven distribution of compliance. That has led to huge cost for zero reward.
xyzzyz 6y ago
You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. In other words, the illness will die out, unless it doesn't. Here's some practical experience with this approach: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/ An outbreak of common colds at an Antarctic base after seventeen weeks of complete isolation.
- roca 6y ago
  More relevant practical experience: NZ's lockdown shows that we were able to eliminate COVID19 within the country. Six weeks of a pretty hard lockdown followed by six more weeks of gradual relaxing of restrictions.
worker767424 6y ago
They are very effective, but a shared HVAC system could also infect an entire building, and it might not happen quickly enough for 3 weeks to be "safe." They were effective in NZ, but NZ is still getting new cases, so it's remarkably hard to get 100%.
- roca 6y ago
  Having zero cases all the time is remarkably hard but it's also not that important. A lockdown-to-elimination strategy is working well if you can keep driving the number down to zero with low restrictions in place. In NZ it is working well.
- thisrod 6y ago
  > NZ is still getting new cases In fairness, those are due to quarantine failures, which were anticipated and planned for. Why would a region with one person per square kilometer plan to quarantine people in a crowded hotel in the centre of a crowded city, and respond to the inevitable outbreaks which potentially expose millions of people to the virus, when you could divert all the jets to Woomera and stick everyone in tents for 14 days? That's a question which those responsible are trying hard to ignore.
quicklyfrozen 6y ago
I'm not sure there's any possible way to achieve a real lockdown in the US when half the population doesn't even believe in the severity of the virus. How would you enforce it? And a strict lockdown would require most people to have enough supplies in place to last the few weeks, which is likely an impossible demand for our supply chain to meet, and also impossible for those who live paycheck to paycheck.

mcguire 6y ago

Obvious how? It does not logically follow.