6 ms·

If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the ter

by roca 6y ago

If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the term "lockdown" meaningless and you should stop talking about it. What matters to me and most other responsible citizens is: what are the rules I need to follow? Can I have social gatherings? Can I go out for dinner? If I can't, I'm calling that a lockdown. This is what determines the effects on the economy, mental health, personal freedom, etc. What is technically legal is irrelevant.

zepto 6y ago
You think what is technically legal is irrelevant, and that I should stop using the word ‘lockdown’. I think what is technically legal is quite relevant. Making things illegal is not the only tool for getting people to adopt behaviors. Often it is counterproductive. A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law. Contrast that with the UK which had strongly enforced legal lockdowns, but notably poor results. If you don’t think we should consider whether the mechanisms we are using to get people to behave responsibly are effective, then you don’t have to participate in such considerations.
- roca 6y ago
  If you want to make the argument that making restrictions illegal on paper decreases compliance, that's fine, though I very much doubt it. Comparisons across very different countries won't make the case. But when people talk about whether lockdowns are good or bad they tend to be assuming compliance and considering the effects of that compliance, so I think your definition sows confusion.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I’m not making a case. I’m making a distinction which you seem to be saying I should not be. Compliance rate is a very commonly considered variable in evidence based medicine - there is nothing confusing about considering it. Compliance very much varies between intervention types and cultures. Also not remotely controversial. Assuming compliance is almost always an error in considering the outcomes of medical interventions. If we are going to reason about what kinds of coronavirus interventions are effective, we must consider compliance. Whether something is mandated by law or not is definitely a variable in determining compliance. If it were not, and as you claim, Swedes have been complying this whole time, why would Sweden have started using force of law recently? Presumably they think it will increase compliance.
    - roca 6y ago
      There are many reports of high compliance. E.g. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/ "93 percent of the population say they are following social-distancing recommendations." Maybe compliance has waned since. I don't know. Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown": Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown." Bob: "Great, so we should just go and live our normal lives then." Alex: "Actually no. We need to cut off most social contact, ban visitors to rest homes, and work from home when possible." Bob: "Er, that sounds like a lockdown to me!" Alex: "WELL ACTUALLY it's not a lockdown as long as the government doesn't assert the legal authority to enforce these restrictions." Bob: "... but the effects on health, well-being and the economy will be the same as a lockdown?" Alex: "If everyone complies, which we expect them to, then yes, but the important thing is that we don't call it a lockdown."
      - zepto 6y ago
        Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown": Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown." Bob: "How did they manage that?" Alex: "They gave their citizens a bunch of guidance on how to reduce the spread of the disease, and asked them to be responsible and most Swedes complied." Bob: "Why can’t we do that?" Alex: "Good question - something to do with our government or our culture?" Bob: "Seems like our government might have burned less goodwill if it had used Sweden’s approach and we’d be in better shape going into this second wave.” Alex: “Yeah, maybe you are right.”
    - roca 6y ago
      Actually, I agree with you in that compliance is far more important than whether a lockdown is legally enforced or not. That means defining lockdown as "government restrictions legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Defining it as "government restrictions widely complied with" would make a lot more sense. And by that definition, Sweden has apparently had a lockdown.
      - 6y ago
- Sporktacular 6y ago
  "A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law." Mandated lockdowns are precisely for the people who don't voluntarily behave responsibly. And damn Sweden has a lot of them too. Worse, those in charge used their authority to mandate NOT using masks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surr... https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/ Swedes failed each other, and the failure to employ legal authority effectively meant their government did too. And their economy is no better for it https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
  - zepto 6y ago
    Sounds like you are saying they didn’t have a lockdown but should have had. It’s worth pointing out that roca’s comment contradicts you about Sweden’s compliance rate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118200
    - Sporktacular 6y ago
      I certainly am, and think roca's claims aren't supported by the sources I provided. My reply was partly because of the sentence "The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative." However if you weren't claiming that Swedes followed recommendations and meant it as a conditional then I misdirected my reply.
      - zepto 6y ago
        That makes sense. I could have been clearer and qualified my statement with “If as Roca claims”, rather than “The fact that”. I was replying to Roca and just taking their facts at face value.
      - roca 6y ago
s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think the distinction between legally backed lockdowns and government recommendations is extremely relevant and at the core of the entire US response debate. There is a large portion of the population that will fight tooth and nail against an order, but will follow a recommendation. Obvious hyperbole alert!: I love my wife, but I would be furious if I were ordered to kiss her at gunpoint. In this case, the public reaction all ties back to how individuals view their relationship with laws and the government.
- roca 6y ago
  That's fair. That's probably a cultural difference between my country and yours.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I think you’ve just conceded the point you’ve been arguing against.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  We have run into BIG problems because people don't come close to following recommendations if they're left to their own devices. Sometimes you need a little more of a 'nudge' to get people to do the right thing. “Despite North Dakota’s remarkable efforts at testing and case finding, these measures are no longer enough, and we are now in desperate need of implementing stronger measures in order to save lives and preserve our health care workforce and capacity,” said Dr. Paul Carson, an infectious disease specialist, professor of public health at North Dakota State University and physician advisor to the state’s COVID-19 response. “We have a growing body of good evidence that masking, especially when paired with other mitigation strategies, can substantially reduce the spread of the virus. I am very grateful that the Governor has taken the bold measure to implement an enforced mask mandate across the state, and am hopeful this will help to flatten the curve.” https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-announces-new-requirements-businesses-gatherings-and-masks-delays-winter-activities https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-announces-new-requir... More and more conservative states are finding that if they don't make masks mandatory all that winds up happening is the ICUs fill up, healthcare workers start getting sick, and things get real scary real quick (e.g. Arizona changed their tune about masks REAL quick when Phoenix ICUs started hitting 90% capacity). I hate the government telling me what to do as much as the next person, but there are a lot of people out there who just don't grasp the concept of 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should.' I don't care if you kiss your wife or don't kiss your wife. I do care if you stand 6 inches behind me coughing with no mask in the grocery store, and if you do that I would very much like you to be thrown out by force if necessary, because you're putting my life and my family's life at risk because of nothing other than some bizarre paranoia about how wearing masks makes you less of a man (not that I think you personally would do that, but I had that happen to me pre-mask-regulations during COVID in an Arizona grocery store and it really pissed me off. A sick-looking guy with no mask on hacking up a lung in front of the deli counter at Safeway isn't freedom, it's stupidity. Stuff like that just happens in the absence of mandatory restrictions, and it puts everyone's life at risk for zero reason. I wish my fellow Americans weren't that stupid, but unfortunately enough of them are.
pessimizer 6y ago
> If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the term "lockdown" meaningless and you should stop talking about it. You've explained a pretty clear and meaningful distinction. You may not think it is important, but it has a meaning. I'm saying this as someone who supports authorities backing their restrictions with legal authority and vigorous enforcement.
- roca 6y ago
  That's fair, but the distinction does get blurry. In Auckland over time we have had: 1. Government suggesting that wearing masks on public transport would be good 2. Government asking everyone to wear masks on public transport 3. Government issuing a legally backed health order requiring everyone to wear masks on public transport, but saying police will take an "educative approach", i.e. no actual enforcement 4. Government legally requiring everyone to wear masks and the police actually enforcing it a little bit but mostly not Theoretically we could have 5. Government enforcing mask usage rigorously. Apparently some people think that at some point we crossed a line that was really important, but was it #3, #4, or #5, and why?
  - zepto 6y ago
    When a word has a range of meanings and people aren’t sure precisely what someone else means, they ask questions to find out what their interlocutor is referring to. Perhaps if you are leading an organization or have some legal authority, you can insist on a precise definition to be used in a particular context, but in general public discourse, attempts to do that are typically ineffective.

by roca 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

You think what is technically legal is irrelevant, and that I should stop using the word ‘lockdown’. I think what is technically legal is quite relevant. Making things illegal is not the only tool for getting people to adopt behaviors. Often it is counterproductive. A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law. Contrast that with the UK which had strongly enforced legal lockdowns, but notably poor results. If you don’t think we should consider whether the mechanisms we are using to get people to behave responsibly are effective, then you don’t have to participate in such considerations.

roca 6y ago
If you want to make the argument that making restrictions illegal on paper decreases compliance, that's fine, though I very much doubt it. Comparisons across very different countries won't make the case. But when people talk about whether lockdowns are good or bad they tend to be assuming compliance and considering the effects of that compliance, so I think your definition sows confusion.
- zepto 6y ago
  I’m not making a case. I’m making a distinction which you seem to be saying I should not be. Compliance rate is a very commonly considered variable in evidence based medicine - there is nothing confusing about considering it. Compliance very much varies between intervention types and cultures. Also not remotely controversial. Assuming compliance is almost always an error in considering the outcomes of medical interventions. If we are going to reason about what kinds of coronavirus interventions are effective, we must consider compliance. Whether something is mandated by law or not is definitely a variable in determining compliance. If it were not, and as you claim, Swedes have been complying this whole time, why would Sweden have started using force of law recently? Presumably they think it will increase compliance.
  - roca 6y ago
    There are many reports of high compliance. E.g. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/ "93 percent of the population say they are following social-distancing recommendations." Maybe compliance has waned since. I don't know. Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown": Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown." Bob: "Great, so we should just go and live our normal lives then." Alex: "Actually no. We need to cut off most social contact, ban visitors to rest homes, and work from home when possible." Bob: "Er, that sounds like a lockdown to me!" Alex: "WELL ACTUALLY it's not a lockdown as long as the government doesn't assert the legal authority to enforce these restrictions." Bob: "... but the effects on health, well-being and the economy will be the same as a lockdown?" Alex: "If everyone complies, which we expect them to, then yes, but the important thing is that we don't call it a lockdown."
    - zepto 6y ago
      Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown": Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown." Bob: "How did they manage that?" Alex: "They gave their citizens a bunch of guidance on how to reduce the spread of the disease, and asked them to be responsible and most Swedes complied." Bob: "Why can’t we do that?" Alex: "Good question - something to do with our government or our culture?" Bob: "Seems like our government might have burned less goodwill if it had used Sweden’s approach and we’d be in better shape going into this second wave.” Alex: “Yeah, maybe you are right.”
  - roca 6y ago
    Actually, I agree with you in that compliance is far more important than whether a lockdown is legally enforced or not. That means defining lockdown as "government restrictions legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Defining it as "government restrictions widely complied with" would make a lot more sense. And by that definition, Sweden has apparently had a lockdown.
    - 6y ago
Sporktacular 6y ago
"A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law." Mandated lockdowns are precisely for the people who don't voluntarily behave responsibly. And damn Sweden has a lot of them too. Worse, those in charge used their authority to mandate NOT using masks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surr... https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/ Swedes failed each other, and the failure to employ legal authority effectively meant their government did too. And their economy is no better for it https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
- zepto 6y ago
  Sounds like you are saying they didn’t have a lockdown but should have had. It’s worth pointing out that roca’s comment contradicts you about Sweden’s compliance rate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118200
  - Sporktacular 6y ago
    I certainly am, and think roca's claims aren't supported by the sources I provided. My reply was partly because of the sentence "The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative." However if you weren't claiming that Swedes followed recommendations and meant it as a conditional then I misdirected my reply.
    - zepto 6y ago
      That makes sense. I could have been clearer and qualified my statement with “If as Roca claims”, rather than “The fact that”. I was replying to Roca and just taking their facts at face value.
    - roca 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think the distinction between legally backed lockdowns and government recommendations is extremely relevant and at the core of the entire US response debate. There is a large portion of the population that will fight tooth and nail against an order, but will follow a recommendation. Obvious hyperbole alert!: I love my wife, but I would be furious if I were ordered to kiss her at gunpoint. In this case, the public reaction all ties back to how individuals view their relationship with laws and the government.

roca 6y ago
That's fair. That's probably a cultural difference between my country and yours.
- zepto 6y ago
  I think you’ve just conceded the point you’ve been arguing against.
phobosanomaly 6y ago
We have run into BIG problems because people don't come close to following recommendations if they're left to their own devices. Sometimes you need a little more of a 'nudge' to get people to do the right thing. “Despite North Dakota’s remarkable efforts at testing and case finding, these measures are no longer enough, and we are now in desperate need of implementing stronger measures in order to save lives and preserve our health care workforce and capacity,” said Dr. Paul Carson, an infectious disease specialist, professor of public health at North Dakota State University and physician advisor to the state’s COVID-19 response. “We have a growing body of good evidence that masking, especially when paired with other mitigation strategies, can substantially reduce the spread of the virus. I am very grateful that the Governor has taken the bold measure to implement an enforced mask mandate across the state, and am hopeful this will help to flatten the curve.” https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-announces-new-requirements-businesses-gatherings-and-masks-delays-winter-activities https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-announces-new-requir... More and more conservative states are finding that if they don't make masks mandatory all that winds up happening is the ICUs fill up, healthcare workers start getting sick, and things get real scary real quick (e.g. Arizona changed their tune about masks REAL quick when Phoenix ICUs started hitting 90% capacity). I hate the government telling me what to do as much as the next person, but there are a lot of people out there who just don't grasp the concept of 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should.' I don't care if you kiss your wife or don't kiss your wife. I do care if you stand 6 inches behind me coughing with no mask in the grocery store, and if you do that I would very much like you to be thrown out by force if necessary, because you're putting my life and my family's life at risk because of nothing other than some bizarre paranoia about how wearing masks makes you less of a man (not that I think you personally would do that, but I had that happen to me pre-mask-regulations during COVID in an Arizona grocery store and it really pissed me off. A sick-looking guy with no mask on hacking up a lung in front of the deli counter at Safeway isn't freedom, it's stupidity. Stuff like that just happens in the absence of mandatory restrictions, and it puts everyone's life at risk for zero reason. I wish my fellow Americans weren't that stupid, but unfortunately enough of them are.

pessimizer 6y ago

> If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the term "lockdown" meaningless and you should stop talking about it. You've explained a pretty clear and meaningful distinction. You may not think it is important, but it has a meaning. I'm saying this as someone who supports authorities backing their restrictions with legal authority and vigorous enforcement.

roca 6y ago
That's fair, but the distinction does get blurry. In Auckland over time we have had: 1. Government suggesting that wearing masks on public transport would be good 2. Government asking everyone to wear masks on public transport 3. Government issuing a legally backed health order requiring everyone to wear masks on public transport, but saying police will take an "educative approach", i.e. no actual enforcement 4. Government legally requiring everyone to wear masks and the police actually enforcing it a little bit but mostly not Theoretically we could have 5. Government enforcing mask usage rigorously. Apparently some people think that at some point we crossed a line that was really important, but was it #3, #4, or #5, and why?
- zepto 6y ago
  When a word has a range of meanings and people aren’t sure precisely what someone else means, they ask questions to find out what their interlocutor is referring to. Perhaps if you are leading an organization or have some legal authority, you can insist on a precise definition to be used in a particular context, but in general public discourse, attempts to do that are typically ineffective.