6 ms·
Epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford demand: "Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." [1] Stanford s
by Capira 6y ago
Epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford demand: "Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." [1]
Stanford study: "we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of [lockdowns] on case growth in any country." [2]
[1] http://gbdeclaration.org/ http://gbdeclaration.org/
[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
- hyperman1 6y agoThe second paper is interesting, and I have only skimmed it, not read it (I'l check it out this evening). Basically it compares 8 country's with harsh measures (mrNPI's) with 2 countrys with lighter measures (lrNPI's) It might imply that lockdowns are not the only way forward, but surely does not advocate doing nothing. Some notes from Page 5 figure 2 - That whole table is interesting to show what works and what doesn't. France, national lockdown is in green, i.e. significant effect estimated on daily growth rate. So lockdowns do work, according to the paper. In lrNPI's, the countrys without lockdown, the table suggests as alternatives: * For South Korea: Optional social distancing and emergency declaration. * For Sweden: School closure, no public or private gathering. I'm not sure if this is much better than a complete lockdown. There are also big differences in how well people follow guidelines from their governement. Cliché maybe, but i see optional social distancing working better in South Korea culture than in an USA style 'fuck the gubberment' culture. The site's PDF viewer should be taken out and shot, BTW. Here is a download link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/eci.13484?download=true https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/eci.13...