3 ms·
There is a lot unknown about the effects of various measures used to contain COVID-19. But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. We know
by fabian2k 6y ago
There is a lot unknown about the effects of various measures used to contain COVID-19. But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. We know the death rate by age well enough, we can suspect that there are significant long-term effects in survivors even if we don't know the full extent.
We also know that reducing contacts reduces the transmission of diseases like COVID-19. We might have no hard data on how well each measure works, but we know that reducing contacts does work in general.
The part I find problematic are the very generic "just protect the vulnerable populations" calls. I mean that would be a great solution for a virus with this kind of strong age dependency in lethality. But I still have no idea at all how we are supposed to protect the vulnerable populations while the virus is spreading among everyone else. For me this is just a slogan, not a real solution. I don't see how it could be possible to let the virus surge in a large part of the population while still reliably isolating everyone above 60 or so. I honestly don't see any way this can work at all, so I'm entirely baffled by this line of argument.
- collyw 6y ago> But the consequences of doing nothing are reasonably well known. What do you think happens if we do nothing? Seeing that Sweden's cases didn't spiral out of control as initially expected I am sceptical about how much use lockdowns actually are.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoI think its worth looking at US cases for what happens when you do nothing, as Sweden had (non-mandatory) but strongly recommended restrictions since March.
- 1123581321 6y agoHow so? The US hasn't done nothing. Are there countries that have actually had zero response at a national or provincial level to COVID that we can look at?
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoThey've done a lot less in large parts of the country than basically any other developed country, so it's closer to nothing than most of Europe.
- 1123581321 6y agoLook at state-wide restrictions. Effectively every state has them and they cover our large cities as well as rural regions. You can see a very rough overview here in one of our major papers: https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-america-map/ https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-... The degree of the response varies. Most states have a program to close “non-essential” commercial and public indoor spaces or limit inhabitants. Masks are typically required indoors. In rural areas you’ll see lower compliance rates, but also fewer outbreaks due to the lower population density and fewer social opportunities. It is technically closer to nothing than a very aggressive lockdown, though, even though that does not make for an effective study of no response. US residents have not been forbidden from leaving their homes.