3 ms·

Continuing on from my other reply on country scale, we can actually drill down to Illinois and take a look: https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&

Continuing on from my other reply on country scale, we can actually drill down to Illinois and take a look: https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3Aen&mid=%2Fm%2F03v0t https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3... You can see that restrictions did have clear effects in first and second wave. By June, restrictions had beaten back the virus almost far enough. You can also see the effect of strong restrictions at the end of November (up to "Tier 3" by Nov 20) : the number of infections is trending back down. Looks like Illinois is doing a fair job! Thank goodness those extra beds weren't needed.

Izkata 6y ago
You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  I think it's safe to assume that they were probably at "Tier 2" prior to Nov 20? Due to the way that Covid is stealthy, you don't see the effects of policy measures for 14 days or more. It's not very surprising that policy measures would lag behind the curves. And I don't really see a problem with the extra hospital beds. This particular pandemic is really hard to manage. If someone accidentally prepares more hospital beds than they need, that's perfectly fine by me. That's a much better plan than not having enough. Unless you think that protecting citizens from harm (foreign or domestic) is not a duty of the government, I guess they're doing as good a job as they can, given the circumstances. It's not pretty, but then again it can't be.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  Additionally, before you ask: You might argue in this case they could have theoretically backed down restrictions to a lower level, once they saw that the lower level was already having an effect. But in leadership, it's often good to stay a given course, if it is at all helpful. In this case, it is, You get back down to lower infection numbers faster, thus allowing people more freedoms again sooner.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  Wait, just to be sure. I just realized ... Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Eh, probably not. You'd know that some people who are hospitalized also die. Also; knowing the difficulty of trying to deal with an exponential curve, how would you be sure to cut off at just the right time, before people start dying in the streets? Ok, no, that can't be it. I don't think people are monsters, so you're unlikely to be one :-) .
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Not completely filled, but yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. If we had allowed the extra capacity to get used, instead of getting rid of it, the lockdowns wouldn't have had to be as strict. Less strict lockdowns means less economic problems, which means we could sustain them longer. Which gets right back to my original point: As it is now, people have ended up with more pressing concerns than the virus and so care less and less about following the lockdowns. Also another quick aside, back on that original point - "two weeks to slow the spread"? Lockdowns were sold to us specifically on slowing the spread while we increased capacity, to deal with the increase in patients. There was always an understanding that as long as we don't go past that capacity, no extra lives would be saved, they'd just be spread over a longer period. That's why the original slogan was "two weeks" - it was what we needed to build the extra capacity, then we could stop the lockdowns as long as we kept masks/social distancing.
    - Kim_Bruning 6y ago
      I don't know what you were sold, of course. But surely you agree that deliberately making/letting people get sick is obviously evil. What could possibly be a more pressing concern than people's health? Indeed in many countries the original restrictions were lifted or ameliorated after the first wave. However -just looking at the numbers- obviously something went terribly wrong in the United States overall, and authorities were not able to keep their promise. This sucks terribly. It doesn't magically make it safe to not have restrictions, of course.

Izkata 6y ago

You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago
I think it's safe to assume that they were probably at "Tier 2" prior to Nov 20? Due to the way that Covid is stealthy, you don't see the effects of policy measures for 14 days or more. It's not very surprising that policy measures would lag behind the curves. And I don't really see a problem with the extra hospital beds. This particular pandemic is really hard to manage. If someone accidentally prepares more hospital beds than they need, that's perfectly fine by me. That's a much better plan than not having enough. Unless you think that protecting citizens from harm (foreign or domestic) is not a duty of the government, I guess they're doing as good a job as they can, given the circumstances. It's not pretty, but then again it can't be.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Additionally, before you ask: You might argue in this case they could have theoretically backed down restrictions to a lower level, once they saw that the lower level was already having an effect. But in leadership, it's often good to stay a given course, if it is at all helpful. In this case, it is, You get back down to lower infection numbers faster, thus allowing people more freedoms again sooner.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Wait, just to be sure. I just realized ... Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Eh, probably not. You'd know that some people who are hospitalized also die. Also; knowing the difficulty of trying to deal with an exponential curve, how would you be sure to cut off at just the right time, before people start dying in the streets? Ok, no, that can't be it. I don't think people are monsters, so you're unlikely to be one :-) .
- Izkata 6y ago
  > Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Not completely filled, but yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. If we had allowed the extra capacity to get used, instead of getting rid of it, the lockdowns wouldn't have had to be as strict. Less strict lockdowns means less economic problems, which means we could sustain them longer. Which gets right back to my original point: As it is now, people have ended up with more pressing concerns than the virus and so care less and less about following the lockdowns. Also another quick aside, back on that original point - "two weeks to slow the spread"? Lockdowns were sold to us specifically on slowing the spread while we increased capacity, to deal with the increase in patients. There was always an understanding that as long as we don't go past that capacity, no extra lives would be saved, they'd just be spread over a longer period. That's why the original slogan was "two weeks" - it was what we needed to build the extra capacity, then we could stop the lockdowns as long as we kept masks/social distancing.
  - Kim_Bruning 6y ago
    I don't know what you were sold, of course. But surely you agree that deliberately making/letting people get sick is obviously evil. What could possibly be a more pressing concern than people's health? Indeed in many countries the original restrictions were lifted or ameliorated after the first wave. However -just looking at the numbers- obviously something went terribly wrong in the United States overall, and authorities were not able to keep their promise. This sucks terribly. It doesn't magically make it safe to not have restrictions, of course.