5 ms·

Lockdown in and of itself is the divide. It's a policy thought up by rich folks, in huge family houses, with good family relations, and inflicted on the rest o

Lockdown in and of itself is the divide. It's a policy thought up by rich folks, in huge family houses, with good family relations, and inflicted on the rest of us. I live alone. I cannot - not will not, but simply cannot - follow rules that mean I have social contact once every week and spend the rest of the time in complete isolation. A 100% probability of a mental breakdown is far worse than an 0.5% probability of death to me, shrug.

OkayPhysicist 6y ago
And it's that kind of asinine reasoning that we are approaching 1 year of Covid restrictions, instead of crushing it in a month.
- jMyles 6y ago
  This is the public health equivalent of "beatings will continue until morale improves." Crushing it in a month was only possible if a controlled, highly acute spread was permitted through a completely isolated low-risk tier. Lockdowns prevented a more acute spread, and thus increased the duration of the pandemic period, delaying endemic equilibrium.
- esotericn 6y ago
  Mental health doesn't respect 'reasoning'. If your policy requires humans to be robots, you are a bad policy maker. I followed the rules until it became clear that I was becoming psychotic as a result of extreme isolation and about to snap and hurt myself and others. To avoid a 100% suicide rate, I will take a 10% death rate. If you're interested in convincing me why I should sacrifice myself for your benefit, I'm all ears. Hyperbolic, 'holier-than-thou' messaging doesn't address the problem.
  - objectivetruth 6y ago
    You called someone "hyperbolic" after you posted: "To avoid a 100% suicide rate, I will take a 10% death rate." Your only feasible options are to kill yourself or to flout social distancing rules? If your behavior resulted in the death of neighbors, their survivors might not be consoled by the fact that you weren't willing to seek appropriate mental health treatment. And yes, if you are imminently facing a psychotic break and contemplating suicide, you ARE having other issues beyond just "haven't seen my friends or family in person for a couple of months."
- rayiner 6y ago
  The idea of “crushing COVID in a month” is a fantasy, and in retrospect maybe it always was. Nobody has done it except a handful of remote island nations (Australia, New Zealand). Even Japan hasn’t managed to do it.
jMyles 6y ago
Lockdown sucks for you, clearly. But consider that even if your position (something like collateral damage), you're better off than the true victims: people who have been forced to move into a multigen housing situation as a result of this. Especially those who have "essential" jobs. Lockdowns were designed to cause, and have caused, the most acute spread to occur in the most marginalized populations, instead of the lowest risk populations. It has played out precisely as Ioannidis, Gupta, Katz, Baral, and nearly every other decent and compassionate expert warned, from the beginning.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  No doubt lockdowns have caused hardships for various groups of people, but the following statement seems beyond the pale. No matter which policy you pick, there will be differential effects; this is true of the vast majority of public policy decisions. Do you have any evidence that COVID policies were designed with the goal to hurt people? > Lockdowns were designed to cause ... the most acute spread to occur in the most marginalized populations
  - jMyles 6y ago
    > Do you have any evidence that COVID policies were designed with the goal to hurt people I didn't say - and do not believe - that they were designed to hurt people. Rather, they were designed in such a way that the modification in acuity is different in different groups. Specifically, lockdowns are not designed to leverage low-risk groups, and are instead designed to leverage privileges which are distributed with profound inequity in society. And this point is entirely transparent. Look at every supporting document of this concept (none of which existed prior to 2020, by the way). They all, without any exception that has been brought to my attention, presume that the ameliorating effects on the virus are related to staying in homes, reducing human contacts, etc. - things that do not apply to members of our community who are experiencing houselessness, to people who have left college dorms with no place to go other than multigen housing, etc. They are transparently designed to reduce the acuity of spread by leveraging privileges that these groups don't have. Another way of saying this is that they are designed to cause the most acute spread to occur in these groups. Consider also that lockdowns - and even the word lockdown - comes from the American prison system. It is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that precipitated the marginalization of these groups in the first place. I think that capable, reasonable, good people designed this policy, but did so without listening to what the most qualified experts had to say on the subject.
CharlesW 6y ago
> I cannot - not will not, but simply cannot - follow rules that mean I have social contact once every week and spend the rest of the time in complete isolation. I sympathize that you absolutely must have physical, in-person contact to remain sane. The good news is that there are ways to do this and still be safe. For example, we have two families that we're co-sheltering with, who we know are being as safe as we are. It's important not to conflate "lack of physical contact" with "complete isolation", because that takes away your agency (and your responsibility, since you've expressed a preference for putting others at risk) to improve your situation by being more social in safe ways — online gaming, virtual book clubs, drop-in ambient video calls with co-workers, socially-distanced hiking with friends, etc. Also, we all need help sometimes! Online therapy can be great.
- esotericn 6y ago
  I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful with this comment, but you're essentially parroting the same line that happy families have been doing for a year now. "For example, we have two families that we're co-sheltering with" Right, so you're not alone, and these rules don't result in you having 0 social interaction most days. If I hadn't had the in-person, real contact that I do with friends and family, breaking so-called "rules" to do so, I would have gone postal. Full psychotic break. I was very close, and I am still very close. > you've expressed a preference for putting others at risk I don't have a preference for putting others at risk at all; I don't think you realise how offensive a statement that is. Coronavirus is not the only thing that exists in the universe; for you it may be the #1 most important factor because your other needs are taken care of, that's fine, it's not for everyone. These policies put me at risk. Telling me to look at screens as a substitute for human interaction puts me at risk. Not just me, but my friends and family, a year in everyone is going mental. I am preventing myself from losing control of my mind, which would put myself and others at far more risk than even SARS 1 would have.
  - CharlesW 6y ago
    I'm sorry that that remote socialization doesn't provide any sort of respite for you. I can imagine (but can't truly appreciate) how much harder that would make this pandemic. I'm happy that you have at least some in-person contact with friends and family, and hope you can keep doing that. Best of luck, friend!
cratermoon 6y ago
That's a pretty selfish way of seeing things. The isolation is not that severe.
- esotericn 6y ago
  Thank you for telling me that losing control of my mental faculties is "selfish". I'll keep that in mind when I'm not able to keep it in mind. Glad you're having a nice time of it.
  - dang 6y ago
    I appreciate your sharing your experience, but please don't take HN threads further into flamewar even when another commenter responds badly. That just leads to a downward spiral, which we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  That's a pretty self-centered way of seeing things. The isolation isn't that severe to you, in your circumstances. But how do you know what esotericn's circumstances are? How do you know what his/her mental health is, and how the lockdown affects it? I submit that you don't know. You're projecting your circumstances and your mental health onto esotericn, and then judging that he/she is selfish for not being able to take it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - esotericn 6y ago
    Thank you.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

OkayPhysicist 6y ago

And it's that kind of asinine reasoning that we are approaching 1 year of Covid restrictions, instead of crushing it in a month.

jMyles 6y ago
This is the public health equivalent of "beatings will continue until morale improves." Crushing it in a month was only possible if a controlled, highly acute spread was permitted through a completely isolated low-risk tier. Lockdowns prevented a more acute spread, and thus increased the duration of the pandemic period, delaying endemic equilibrium.
esotericn 6y ago
Mental health doesn't respect 'reasoning'. If your policy requires humans to be robots, you are a bad policy maker. I followed the rules until it became clear that I was becoming psychotic as a result of extreme isolation and about to snap and hurt myself and others. To avoid a 100% suicide rate, I will take a 10% death rate. If you're interested in convincing me why I should sacrifice myself for your benefit, I'm all ears. Hyperbolic, 'holier-than-thou' messaging doesn't address the problem.
- objectivetruth 6y ago
  You called someone "hyperbolic" after you posted: "To avoid a 100% suicide rate, I will take a 10% death rate." Your only feasible options are to kill yourself or to flout social distancing rules? If your behavior resulted in the death of neighbors, their survivors might not be consoled by the fact that you weren't willing to seek appropriate mental health treatment. And yes, if you are imminently facing a psychotic break and contemplating suicide, you ARE having other issues beyond just "haven't seen my friends or family in person for a couple of months."
rayiner 6y ago
The idea of “crushing COVID in a month” is a fantasy, and in retrospect maybe it always was. Nobody has done it except a handful of remote island nations (Australia, New Zealand). Even Japan hasn’t managed to do it.

jMyles 6y ago

Lockdown sucks for you, clearly. But consider that even if your position (something like collateral damage), you're better off than the true victims: people who have been forced to move into a multigen housing situation as a result of this. Especially those who have "essential" jobs. Lockdowns were designed to cause, and have caused, the most acute spread to occur in the most marginalized populations, instead of the lowest risk populations. It has played out precisely as Ioannidis, Gupta, Katz, Baral, and nearly every other decent and compassionate expert warned, from the beginning.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
No doubt lockdowns have caused hardships for various groups of people, but the following statement seems beyond the pale. No matter which policy you pick, there will be differential effects; this is true of the vast majority of public policy decisions. Do you have any evidence that COVID policies were designed with the goal to hurt people? > Lockdowns were designed to cause ... the most acute spread to occur in the most marginalized populations
- jMyles 6y ago
  > Do you have any evidence that COVID policies were designed with the goal to hurt people I didn't say - and do not believe - that they were designed to hurt people. Rather, they were designed in such a way that the modification in acuity is different in different groups. Specifically, lockdowns are not designed to leverage low-risk groups, and are instead designed to leverage privileges which are distributed with profound inequity in society. And this point is entirely transparent. Look at every supporting document of this concept (none of which existed prior to 2020, by the way). They all, without any exception that has been brought to my attention, presume that the ameliorating effects on the virus are related to staying in homes, reducing human contacts, etc. - things that do not apply to members of our community who are experiencing houselessness, to people who have left college dorms with no place to go other than multigen housing, etc. They are transparently designed to reduce the acuity of spread by leveraging privileges that these groups don't have. Another way of saying this is that they are designed to cause the most acute spread to occur in these groups. Consider also that lockdowns - and even the word lockdown - comes from the American prison system. It is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that precipitated the marginalization of these groups in the first place. I think that capable, reasonable, good people designed this policy, but did so without listening to what the most qualified experts had to say on the subject.

CharlesW 6y ago

> I cannot - not will not, but simply cannot - follow rules that mean I have social contact once every week and spend the rest of the time in complete isolation. I sympathize that you absolutely must have physical, in-person contact to remain sane. The good news is that there are ways to do this and still be safe. For example, we have two families that we're co-sheltering with, who we know are being as safe as we are. It's important not to conflate "lack of physical contact" with "complete isolation", because that takes away your agency (and your responsibility, since you've expressed a preference for putting others at risk) to improve your situation by being more social in safe ways — online gaming, virtual book clubs, drop-in ambient video calls with co-workers, socially-distanced hiking with friends, etc. Also, we all need help sometimes! Online therapy can be great.

esotericn 6y ago
I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful with this comment, but you're essentially parroting the same line that happy families have been doing for a year now. "For example, we have two families that we're co-sheltering with" Right, so you're not alone, and these rules don't result in you having 0 social interaction most days. If I hadn't had the in-person, real contact that I do with friends and family, breaking so-called "rules" to do so, I would have gone postal. Full psychotic break. I was very close, and I am still very close. > you've expressed a preference for putting others at risk I don't have a preference for putting others at risk at all; I don't think you realise how offensive a statement that is. Coronavirus is not the only thing that exists in the universe; for you it may be the #1 most important factor because your other needs are taken care of, that's fine, it's not for everyone. These policies put me at risk. Telling me to look at screens as a substitute for human interaction puts me at risk. Not just me, but my friends and family, a year in everyone is going mental. I am preventing myself from losing control of my mind, which would put myself and others at far more risk than even SARS 1 would have.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  I'm sorry that that remote socialization doesn't provide any sort of respite for you. I can imagine (but can't truly appreciate) how much harder that would make this pandemic. I'm happy that you have at least some in-person contact with friends and family, and hope you can keep doing that. Best of luck, friend!

cratermoon 6y ago

That's a pretty selfish way of seeing things. The isolation is not that severe.

esotericn 6y ago
Thank you for telling me that losing control of my mental faculties is "selfish". I'll keep that in mind when I'm not able to keep it in mind. Glad you're having a nice time of it.
- dang 6y ago
  I appreciate your sharing your experience, but please don't take HN threads further into flamewar even when another commenter responds badly. That just leads to a downward spiral, which we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
That's a pretty self-centered way of seeing things. The isolation isn't that severe to you, in your circumstances. But how do you know what esotericn's circumstances are? How do you know what his/her mental health is, and how the lockdown affects it? I submit that you don't know. You're projecting your circumstances and your mental health onto esotericn, and then judging that he/she is selfish for not being able to take it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- esotericn 6y ago
  Thank you.
dang 6y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html