4 ms·

Way back when all this started and the paper came out from the Imperial College, counseling social distancing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions, the id

Way back when all this started and the paper came out from the Imperial College, counseling social distancing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions, the idea was to make a priority of not overwhelming the hospitals. The thinking was that there was no reasonable way of stopping this, so the goal was to ensure as best as possible that no one died because they couldn't receive the supportive care they needed: meaning, because there was no ICU bed available for them. The lockdown mechanism was meant to be periodic and short-lived. We lockdown if we see hospitals are going to be overrun. Then, we open back up again. We don't sacrifice our economy — and our sanity — by keeping things shutdown long-term. We swallow hard and realize that people are going to die. We protect the vulnerable by encouraging them to take extra precautions. But what have we done instead? According to the article, we failed to take into account both the very real phenomenon of lockdown fatigue, and the phenomenon of simply kicking the can down the road: namely, avoiding more cases in the summer (via lockdowns) to then have them pile up in the winter. So, here we are in L.A. and elsewhere. Now, despite the draconian lockdowns and damage to the economy and people's sanity and general well-being, the hospitals are overwhelmed. Ambulances are circling, looking for an empty bed, while their patient-passengers gasp for air. The moral here is that politicians (and much of the populace) panicked and turned into obsessive-compulsives, convinced that if they only did that "one more thing," they could make everything right. And now we see how ridiculous that turned out to be.

lefrenchy 6y ago
How do you come out this end and think “we did too much”? We have definitive proof that we actually did too little. Look at S. Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, etc.. More contact tracing, stricter targeted lockdowns, paying people to stay home. The problem is that we didn’t do enough, instead we took half measures and took all the damage with barely any of the benefit. The idea that death was inevitable is wrong. There are plenty of nations and extremely dense cities with very low death numbers. Sure, Americans are higher risk because they are more obese (or so we think) but our death counts were avoidable.
- mariodiana 6y ago
  In the United States, our death count is skewed by a handful of cities, some of which represent some of the top destinations in the world. New York City gets 65 million visitors a year. Los Angeles get something like 50 million. All of South Korea — never mind Seoul — gets just under 18 million. And let's not even talk about New Zealand. Other than the hobbits, who's going there. In the United States our numbers are skewed by places like NYC and LA. The rest of the country is doing much, much better, overall. Moreover, we're a free country. Yes, I realize that, on paper, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand are also. But the kind of contact tracing and other measures that has gone on in some of these countries is simply unacceptable here, and rightly so. I stand by what I've said. We are destroying this country in an effort to "save lives." Your suggestion is what? More destruction? If you read the original paper from the Imperial College, you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing). Remember, these were estimates. But you will see that we are close to the low end in actual numbers. So, when you say that the idea of death being inevitable is simply wrong, what exactly are you basing that on? Can you answer that? Where do you come up with your assertion?
  - jeremysalwen 6y ago
    You are spreading misinformation. First, the vast vast majority of transmission in the united states was not from visitors, but from community spread, even in highly visited cities like NYC. The 2 million number from the imperial paper everyone likes to quote is explicitly > In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour Where specifically voluntary quarantine (50% compliance) and case isolation (70% compliance), and closure of schools are exanples of interventions discussed. In what world do the current death totals (340k in the United states) disprove the idea that interventions saved lives, and more effectively managed interventions would have saved more lives (as they did in other countries).
    - mariodiana 6y ago
      I am not spreading "misinformation." That term is the new slander. I am referring to initial infections, not pretending that tourism has been going full swing since March. You cannot compare New Zealand to New York City. I don't even think you can compare Seoul — and I accounted for the difference in interventions, regarding Seoul. But you conveniently leave that out. As for your "everyone likes to quote," I in fact said: "you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing)." Are you pretending now that I am misrepresenting the paper? You are simply repeating what I've written, and pretending to be contributing something new to the conversation.

lefrenchy 6y ago

How do you come out this end and think “we did too much”? We have definitive proof that we actually did too little. Look at S. Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, etc.. More contact tracing, stricter targeted lockdowns, paying people to stay home. The problem is that we didn’t do enough, instead we took half measures and took all the damage with barely any of the benefit. The idea that death was inevitable is wrong. There are plenty of nations and extremely dense cities with very low death numbers. Sure, Americans are higher risk because they are more obese (or so we think) but our death counts were avoidable.

mariodiana 6y ago
In the United States, our death count is skewed by a handful of cities, some of which represent some of the top destinations in the world. New York City gets 65 million visitors a year. Los Angeles get something like 50 million. All of South Korea — never mind Seoul — gets just under 18 million. And let's not even talk about New Zealand. Other than the hobbits, who's going there. In the United States our numbers are skewed by places like NYC and LA. The rest of the country is doing much, much better, overall. Moreover, we're a free country. Yes, I realize that, on paper, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand are also. But the kind of contact tracing and other measures that has gone on in some of these countries is simply unacceptable here, and rightly so. I stand by what I've said. We are destroying this country in an effort to "save lives." Your suggestion is what? More destruction? If you read the original paper from the Imperial College, you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing). Remember, these were estimates. But you will see that we are close to the low end in actual numbers. So, when you say that the idea of death being inevitable is simply wrong, what exactly are you basing that on? Can you answer that? Where do you come up with your assertion?
- jeremysalwen 6y ago
  You are spreading misinformation. First, the vast vast majority of transmission in the united states was not from visitors, but from community spread, even in highly visited cities like NYC. The 2 million number from the imperial paper everyone likes to quote is explicitly > In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour Where specifically voluntary quarantine (50% compliance) and case isolation (70% compliance), and closure of schools are exanples of interventions discussed. In what world do the current death totals (340k in the United states) disprove the idea that interventions saved lives, and more effectively managed interventions would have saved more lives (as they did in other countries).
  - mariodiana 6y ago
    I am not spreading "misinformation." That term is the new slander. I am referring to initial infections, not pretending that tourism has been going full swing since March. You cannot compare New Zealand to New York City. I don't even think you can compare Seoul — and I accounted for the difference in interventions, regarding Seoul. But you conveniently leave that out. As for your "everyone likes to quote," I in fact said: "you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing)." Are you pretending now that I am misrepresenting the paper? You are simply repeating what I've written, and pretending to be contributing something new to the conversation.