4 ms·

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 el

by 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.
- cygx 6y ago
  What I argued was that lockdowns don't work. Depends on which studies you trust. I've read a few, and my conclusion back then was that they do work. However, I've not kept up with the debate once I came to that conclusion, so maybe I shouldn't have phrased things quite as strongly as I did. If you have a recommendation for a single study that makes a particularly strong case against lockdowns, feel free to link it. Looking for more recent results just now, I found [1], analyzing the differences in response of US states. It seems to suggests that as a general rule, the stronger the restrictions, the smaller the case growth, which would have been my null hypothesis anyway. Cf. https://i.imgur.com/kLfSs6W.png https://i.imgur.com/kLfSs6W.png I do agree that we do not yet know the effectiveness of any particular measure. It would be nice if we knew better, but experimenting with extinguishing agents while your house is on fire is too risky for my taste. [1] https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/BSG-WP-2020-034-v2_0.pdf https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/BSG-WP-...

by cygx 6y ago

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.

cygx 6y ago
What I argued was that lockdowns don't work. Depends on which studies you trust. I've read a few, and my conclusion back then was that they do work. However, I've not kept up with the debate once I came to that conclusion, so maybe I shouldn't have phrased things quite as strongly as I did. If you have a recommendation for a single study that makes a particularly strong case against lockdowns, feel free to link it. Looking for more recent results just now, I found [1], analyzing the differences in response of US states. It seems to suggests that as a general rule, the stronger the restrictions, the smaller the case growth, which would have been my null hypothesis anyway. Cf. https://i.imgur.com/kLfSs6W.png https://i.imgur.com/kLfSs6W.png I do agree that we do not yet know the effectiveness of any particular measure. It would be nice if we knew better, but experimenting with extinguishing agents while your house is on fire is too risky for my taste. [1] https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/BSG-WP-2020-034-v2_0.pdf https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/BSG-WP-...