4 ms·

Bad lockdowns are bad, yes. Good lockdowns have had amazing impacts in many places. Australia is a good example. Victoria had out of control community spread (

Bad lockdowns are bad, yes. Good lockdowns have had amazing impacts in many places. Australia is a good example. Victoria had out of control community spread (~100 infections a day), so locked down for 3 months. This meant no visitors at home, no going to work unless one of a few specific reasons, no general retail, masks mandated at all times outside the house, no travelling more than 5k for any reason, no travelling for exercise. They got rid of it. This is what lockdown means. This is what the science shows us is effective. Wearing a mask and office jobs being done from home is not a lockdown. Saying badly implemented lockdowns don't work so why bother is the attitude that is killing thousands of people a day.

volkk 6y ago
I dont disagree with the theory of a lockdown when necessary, but now that I look back at our year in the US...it now seems so obvious that this was never going to work. This place is simply too big with too many selfish idiots that want to do their own thing for how virulent COVID is. Leadership is a huge failure that didn't help at all, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we'd be in the same exact position of an uncontrolled spread even if we had a different sitting president with different views. 330 million people spread out across 50 states, across various local governments, some of who might not care as much is just too many people to get on the same page regardless of the message from the top. Australia is 7% of the population of the US. Barely a comparison
- ryandrake 6y ago
  We shouldn’t be saying “Lockdowns don’t work,” because thanks to the idiots we really aren’t doing any kind of real lockdown. We should instead be saying “Uncoordinated and unenforced public health policy and lack of federal leadership doesn’t work.”
  - d357r0y3r 6y ago
    If your policy depends on everyone doing the right thing, it's awful policy. Lockdowns have never been done in human history. They've never been possible, really; if there were no internet, it wouldn't even have been considered as a possibility. It takes a lot of hubris to claim that lockdowns were/are guaranteed to work. It is totally uncharted territory.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      Unenforced policies depend on everyone doing the right thing, and we agree they are doomed to fail. If there was any enforcement at all they could have made a dent. There are plenty of other policies in the USA that are effective because we manage to enforce. Do you know anybody who got a ticket for violating stay-at-home? I don’t.
      - d357r0y3r 6y ago
        All of those policies were developed over time and required buy in over a long period of time. There is no timeline where the American public buys into the lockdowns that would be necessary in February 2020, which is when they would have had to happen.
        ryandrake 6y ago
        I don’t believe that. The vast majority of people this past year understood the seriousness, behaved well, did the right thing voluntarily, and likely would have supported a real stay-at-home order if it would mean the idiots also had to behave. We just didn’t try it because we are cursed with cowardly leadership.
        volkk 6y ago
        > The vast majority of people this past year understood the seriousness, behaved well, did the right thing voluntarily I don't buy that. Where do you live? I spent a couple of months over the summer in Texas (in a non liberal part) and there were like a grand total of 2 people who took any of it seriously. I think its evident based on what happened here that the majority didn't really care, but even if you happen to be right, we don't need a majority, we need 100%. Just go back to early February 2020 and remember that timeline. It only took 1-2 people, then there were 10, then 100, etc. It's exponential. I think your only bet here with a majority (let's conservatively say 60% of people in agreeance with the severity of the virus) is to stop all international/domestic travel completely for a few months. Stop all flights, no interstate travel. Nothing at all, a complete military lockdown. That is the absolute only way to have stopped the spread, akin to what China did. And I simply don't buy that the USA in 2020 would do that without anything short of a revolt.
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  Strong lockdown is literally illegal in the US, violating freedoms that have been through the courts many times. It has nothing to do with selfishness. The government could never impose it, and they knew that. In the US many rights are near absolute in almost all circumstances, including the current ones. You may disagree with those freedoms but they are a matter of law. They cannot be erased when they are inconvenient, it would render the judiciary irrelevant.

volkk 6y ago

I dont disagree with the theory of a lockdown when necessary, but now that I look back at our year in the US...it now seems so obvious that this was never going to work. This place is simply too big with too many selfish idiots that want to do their own thing for how virulent COVID is. Leadership is a huge failure that didn't help at all, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we'd be in the same exact position of an uncontrolled spread even if we had a different sitting president with different views. 330 million people spread out across 50 states, across various local governments, some of who might not care as much is just too many people to get on the same page regardless of the message from the top. Australia is 7% of the population of the US. Barely a comparison

ryandrake 6y ago
We shouldn’t be saying “Lockdowns don’t work,” because thanks to the idiots we really aren’t doing any kind of real lockdown. We should instead be saying “Uncoordinated and unenforced public health policy and lack of federal leadership doesn’t work.”
- d357r0y3r 6y ago
  If your policy depends on everyone doing the right thing, it's awful policy. Lockdowns have never been done in human history. They've never been possible, really; if there were no internet, it wouldn't even have been considered as a possibility. It takes a lot of hubris to claim that lockdowns were/are guaranteed to work. It is totally uncharted territory.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Unenforced policies depend on everyone doing the right thing, and we agree they are doomed to fail. If there was any enforcement at all they could have made a dent. There are plenty of other policies in the USA that are effective because we manage to enforce. Do you know anybody who got a ticket for violating stay-at-home? I don’t.
    - d357r0y3r 6y ago
      All of those policies were developed over time and required buy in over a long period of time. There is no timeline where the American public buys into the lockdowns that would be necessary in February 2020, which is when they would have had to happen.
      - ryandrake 6y ago
        I don’t believe that. The vast majority of people this past year understood the seriousness, behaved well, did the right thing voluntarily, and likely would have supported a real stay-at-home order if it would mean the idiots also had to behave. We just didn’t try it because we are cursed with cowardly leadership.
        volkk 6y ago
        > The vast majority of people this past year understood the seriousness, behaved well, did the right thing voluntarily I don't buy that. Where do you live? I spent a couple of months over the summer in Texas (in a non liberal part) and there were like a grand total of 2 people who took any of it seriously. I think its evident based on what happened here that the majority didn't really care, but even if you happen to be right, we don't need a majority, we need 100%. Just go back to early February 2020 and remember that timeline. It only took 1-2 people, then there were 10, then 100, etc. It's exponential. I think your only bet here with a majority (let's conservatively say 60% of people in agreeance with the severity of the virus) is to stop all international/domestic travel completely for a few months. Stop all flights, no interstate travel. Nothing at all, a complete military lockdown. That is the absolute only way to have stopped the spread, akin to what China did. And I simply don't buy that the USA in 2020 would do that without anything short of a revolt.
jandrewrogers 6y ago
Strong lockdown is literally illegal in the US, violating freedoms that have been through the courts many times. It has nothing to do with selfishness. The government could never impose it, and they knew that. In the US many rights are near absolute in almost all circumstances, including the current ones. You may disagree with those freedoms but they are a matter of law. They cannot be erased when they are inconvenient, it would render the judiciary irrelevant.