4 ms·

Everybody is asking the hard questions and the hard answer is that it is downright impossible to isolate the most vulnerable from the general population. Tried

Everybody is asking the hard questions and the hard answer is that it is downright impossible to isolate the most vulnerable from the general population. Tried and attempted in multiple places; turns out you only need one nurse, one doctor, one caretaker, one young kid in a large household to infect those people. Maybe, just maybe, the experts (and I mean the people who have spent their lifetimes studying the transmission of respiratory diseases) have already weighed in, their answers don't look that different from when things started, and their assessments turned out to be mostly correct?

qeternity 6y ago
> Tried and attempted in multiple places Really? Where was this tried at scale? Where did we spend a fraction of the cost that we incur locking down an entire population. This just isn't true. > Maybe, just maybe, the experts (and I mean the people who have spent their lifetimes studying the transmission of respiratory diseases) have already weighed in, their answers don't look that different from when things started, and their assessments turned out to be mostly correct? The hardest question is whether or not this is worth it, and nobody is asking that because politicians want to get reelected. You are missing the point entirely. Virology experts are not the people who should be making these decisions. It's not as if covid response is free, but they aren't tasked with consdering the costs. They aren't tasked with finding out what the right amount of death is. That's the unfortunate reality and this is what the great leaders throughout history have all understood: there are no good decisions in times like this, merely least worst decisions.
- cygx 6y ago
  I'm always surspised that we're still arguing about this. Look at the excess mortality in Belgium: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=~BEL&region=World https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... Supposedly, that's with the percentage of Covid cases still in the single digits. It seems obvious that if you do not get a handle on this, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed eventually. No sane person wants to see that happen, hence the drastic measures...
  - qeternity 6y ago
    > I'm always surspised that we're still arguing about this. Ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of the worst affected countries, I'm not even sure what you're arguing? Yes, covid is bad and yes it kills people. Did people in Belgium die who otherwise wouldn't have? Yes. Can we move on to the real issue? > If you do not get a handle on this, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed eventually, and no sane person wants to see that happen. Ignoring this ridiculous strawman attack (if I disagree, I'm insane) I'm very unclear where I suggested we shouldn't get a handle on it. Did I suggest that I want out healthcare to be overwhelmed? What is this? You're just throwing up charts an screaming about how bad covid is. We already know this.
    - cygx 6y ago
      Ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of the worst affected countries, I'm not even sure what you're arguing? Belgium is the prototype for what would happen elsewhere if you're just a bit less successful at getting a handle on the pandemic. Did I suggest that I want out healthcare to be overwhelmed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing for a lessening of restrictions for the general public, right now. Here in Germany, there already are a few regions where some hospitals are close to capacity, and modelling suggests that without continued restictions, the health care system might get overwhelmed by March. Ignoring this ridiculous strawman attack (if I disagree, I'm insane) I realize this might come close to violating (or even cross the line of) HN guidelines, but that's how I see it.
      - qeternity 6y ago
        > Correct me if I'm wrong ... > I realize this might come close to violating (or even cross the line of) HN guidelines, but that's how I see it. Ok, you're wrong. And worst of all, you've decided that anyone who doesn't share your exact opinion is insane. No wonder you've got it so wrong, you've cut yourself off from any real discussion. What I argued was that lockdowns don't work. We have done serious lockdowns across the world, and in the best case all the do is buy a little time. In the worst case, they do nothing. The US printed $4T in 2020...do you really not believe that with that money, we could have a devised a better approach that put tremendous resources into isolating the vulnerable population and accepting the stunningly low risk to the rest of the population? It's amazing to me that people on HN, a site dedicated to the constant advancement of the human condition, looks at a failed strategy concocted during panic and says "yeah, that's as good as it gets and can't be improved". Jesus, when it comes to covid all I hear are people asking for faster horses.
ketamine__ 6y ago
Everyone must lockdown because medical professionals are infecting the vulnerable? Perhaps those that are doing the infecting should be quarantined?

qeternity 6y ago

> Tried and attempted in multiple places Really? Where was this tried at scale? Where did we spend a fraction of the cost that we incur locking down an entire population. This just isn't true. > Maybe, just maybe, the experts (and I mean the people who have spent their lifetimes studying the transmission of respiratory diseases) have already weighed in, their answers don't look that different from when things started, and their assessments turned out to be mostly correct? The hardest question is whether or not this is worth it, and nobody is asking that because politicians want to get reelected. You are missing the point entirely. Virology experts are not the people who should be making these decisions. It's not as if covid response is free, but they aren't tasked with consdering the costs. They aren't tasked with finding out what the right amount of death is. That's the unfortunate reality and this is what the great leaders throughout history have all understood: there are no good decisions in times like this, merely least worst decisions.

cygx 6y ago
I'm always surspised that we're still arguing about this. Look at the excess mortality in Belgium: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=~BEL&region=World https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... Supposedly, that's with the percentage of Covid cases still in the single digits. It seems obvious that if you do not get a handle on this, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed eventually. No sane person wants to see that happen, hence the drastic measures...
- qeternity 6y ago
  > I'm always surspised that we're still arguing about this. Ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of the worst affected countries, I'm not even sure what you're arguing? Yes, covid is bad and yes it kills people. Did people in Belgium die who otherwise wouldn't have? Yes. Can we move on to the real issue? > If you do not get a handle on this, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed eventually, and no sane person wants to see that happen. Ignoring this ridiculous strawman attack (if I disagree, I'm insane) I'm very unclear where I suggested we shouldn't get a handle on it. Did I suggest that I want out healthcare to be overwhelmed? What is this? You're just throwing up charts an screaming about how bad covid is. We already know this.
  - cygx 6y ago
    Ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of the worst affected countries, I'm not even sure what you're arguing? Belgium is the prototype for what would happen elsewhere if you're just a bit less successful at getting a handle on the pandemic. Did I suggest that I want out healthcare to be overwhelmed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing for a lessening of restrictions for the general public, right now. Here in Germany, there already are a few regions where some hospitals are close to capacity, and modelling suggests that without continued restictions, the health care system might get overwhelmed by March. Ignoring this ridiculous strawman attack (if I disagree, I'm insane) I realize this might come close to violating (or even cross the line of) HN guidelines, but that's how I see it.
    - qeternity 6y ago
      > Correct me if I'm wrong ... > I realize this might come close to violating (or even cross the line of) HN guidelines, but that's how I see it. Ok, you're wrong. And worst of all, you've decided that anyone who doesn't share your exact opinion is insane. No wonder you've got it so wrong, you've cut yourself off from any real discussion. What I argued was that lockdowns don't work. We have done serious lockdowns across the world, and in the best case all the do is buy a little time. In the worst case, they do nothing. The US printed $4T in 2020...do you really not believe that with that money, we could have a devised a better approach that put tremendous resources into isolating the vulnerable population and accepting the stunningly low risk to the rest of the population? It's amazing to me that people on HN, a site dedicated to the constant advancement of the human condition, looks at a failed strategy concocted during panic and says "yeah, that's as good as it gets and can't be improved". Jesus, when it comes to covid all I hear are people asking for faster horses.

ketamine__ 6y ago

Everyone must lockdown because medical professionals are infecting the vulnerable? Perhaps those that are doing the infecting should be quarantined?