6 ms·

I really feel that at some point in the future, we're going to look back on lockdowns with a highly critical eye, and the people who were most vocal about suppo

by jdhn 6y ago

I really feel that at some point in the future, we're going to look back on lockdowns with a highly critical eye, and the people who were most vocal about supporting said lockdowns will be coming up with excuses as to why they supported them in the first place.

lefrenchy 6y ago
Excuses like “protectng human life in the face of uncertainty” seem valid. History should look back more fondly on someone who tried to save lives in the face of unknowns rather than gamble them. Not to mention there is a gray are. You be a supporter of lockdowns but also believe the government did not sufficiently protect people/businesses. This is a multi-faceted issue, not a binary one.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  I think this was a valid mindset last March when we had little trusted data, limited mitigation strategies, few treatments, and no vaccines. A year later, to have all those things and follow the same policies implies we either a) nailed it from the start or b) are not applying what we've learned. One of those is unlikely and the other unacceptable.
  - 1experience 6y ago
    > I think this was a valid mindset last March when we had little trusted data Ordinary people had little trusted data. Experts had data from cruise ships showing a low infection fatality rate [1], data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2], data showing that the average Covid victim is 80 years old and has three comorbidities[3]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w [2] https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/16/news/coronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302/?ref=RHPPTP-BH-I251454518-C12-P3-S2.4-T1 https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-tho...
    - belltaco 6y ago
      >data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2] Asympomaticity or pre-symptomacity? >Experts had data from cruise ships showing a low infection fatality rate [1], data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2], data showing that the average Covid victim is 80 years old and has three comorbidities[3]. Yet Italy had crowded ICUs and Sweden had to beg neighboring countries to take some ICU patients from them. It'd have been all much much worse without lockdown. Your CFR assumes good critical care.
  - lefrenchy 6y ago
    I’m not sure the US has been applying what we’ve learned, if we’ve learned anything at all. There’s no follow through on restrictions, people have been travelling and partying, etc... Hospitals are still overwhelmed in some cities, health care workers are tired and over-worked, etc... There isn’t enough political capital to end the pandemic or to provide meaningful economic support, so we’re left picking up the pieces of both at the same time.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > Excuses like “protectng human life in the face of uncertainty” seem valid. Terrorism was the excuse last time, and we were told to support the troops. Now it's a viral infection, and we are told to follow the science. This should not ever be a valid excuse, especially since one doesn't have to be that old to remember the last time these sorts of excuses were made - to justify the West's horrific and brutal Middle East occupations. We knew better, and in the face of those facts this excuse is either made out of ignorance, or to cover up for remarkable amounts of incompetence. Neither should be acceptable justifications to the citizens of those countries who hide behind that excuse. > Not to mention there is a gray are. You be a supporter of lockdowns but also believe the government did not sufficiently protect people/businesses. Under what circumstances would a government be able to lock their people down and shutter their businesses, while also sufficiently protecting those people and those businesses? Which governments would have the resources to actually achieve success using these strategies? Governments have a responsibility to operate within their own laws and any country whose legal code allows for the government to overreach into the movement of individual people as they have over the past year, are at grave risk of morphing into the sorts of evil regimes we haven't had to deal with since the end of the second world war. EDIT: Programmers should have better social intelligence than this. Most people in this world do not want to live like programmers, locked up in a room looking at screens all day, transporting bits of electricity from one place to another. In fact, I would reckon many would rather die than live like we do. If people want to live this way freely and of their own choosing, fine - but to impose this on others as the only answer to a multi-faceted issue is just cruel to the broader public.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  I'd like to take a minute and add an important factoid that both sides should know. Humans are REALLY bad at responding to "highly unlikely" risk. With the corona virus, there is a really small chance (~2% depending on factors) that you die after catching the disease. Some people look at this and say "well, I probably won't even get enough viral load to get sick". There are sone people say "wait, I might survive, but then spread it to someone else, with X% probability - and EACH OF THEM might die". Both groups are EQUALLY INCAPABLE of properly assessing the likelihood of living a healthy life or dying (or something in the middle). BOTH GROUPS are responding out of "gut feelings" and emotion and VERY LITTLE LOGIC. I say this not to condem you - in fact I have been in both parties. I say this so that we can find common ground and MEET TOGETHER and acknowledge that is IS HARD, and we should try to work TOGETHER AND NOT DIVID.
ivirshup 6y ago
Living in Melbourne, Australia, where we went through some pretty brutal lockdowns, I think they’ll be viewed very positively. Life here is pretty normal now (I’m going to a concert with thousands of people this week), and there’s no vaccine resistant “Australian strain”. To me, these are good results from proactive lockdowns.
- brmgb 6y ago
  Meanwhile, I have now lived through two multi-months complete lockdowns, have been under a curfew since the beginning of October which prevents me from being out after 6pm and there now is rumors of a third lockdown with no end in sight. Initially I thought we were doing this so our government got time to organize a trace and isolate strategy and then that we were waiting for a vaccine but apparently a year wasn't enough for them to properly put something in place and the vaccination strategy is nothing but a sad joke so I'm starting to seriously wonder why we are accepting this.
  - ivirshup 6y ago
    I’m sorry to hear that, that sounds very rough. It sounds to me like an ineffective broader strategy by your government. I definitely wouldn’t be voting for those people again, and maybe legal action around their incompetence could be an option. I think the examples set by Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea show that effective responses are possible. Lockdowns were an important part of these responses, but of course a lockdown by itself will not solve the pandemic.
    - brmgb 6y ago
      I actually mostly agree. I don't even know why I'm grumbling like that. I guess it's juste getting long and I somewhat despair at the obvious ineptitude of my government (but to be entierely fair they had already been shown to be extremely incompetent before the pandemic). Tangentially, my personal takeaway from the situation is that Europe is doomed. The combination of an ageing population, young voters absenteeism and political clientelism means that policies are now strictly geared towards pensioners. I fear a victory of the far right at the next election in France and fully expect a severe brain drain once the crisis is over. > I think the examples set by Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea show that effective responses are possible. If we remove China whose statistics are dubious, I find it remarkable that apart from Vietnam, all these countries are islands or can be considered as such with regards to immigration.
ummonk 6y ago
I supported contact tracing, testing, and forced quarantines, as well as strict lockdowns to reduce cases to the point where contact tracing and quarantines were feasible. That strategy seems to have worked in much of the Asia-Pacific, successfully returning society to normal. What I absolutely oppose is half-hearted “flatten the curve” lockdowns which prolong the pandemic over a long period of time while putting stifling restrictions on people. It’s the worst of both worlds, and simply letting the virus run wild would be preferable. I’m fairly confident that an analysis of population-wide QALYs will back up my view.
hprotagonist 6y ago
If this round is any judge, it'll be about a century, and we can do it all over again! dibs on not being the guy doing laps of my garden.
walkedaway 6y ago
I get the sense that time is now that reasonable, logical people have realized we screwed up with the overreaction. Back in late March people were already questioning the lockdowns once the unemployment numbers started rolling in. Every day since, we've just been piling up the data that suggests the reaction to covid-19 has been worse than the virus itself. Destroying a generation of kids is going to have significant long term effects over the next 50+ years.
- throwawayyy1986 6y ago
  There is a very unlucky band of kids that've been irreparably screwed over by teachers looking to completely abandon any pretense they're essential to society or have any responsibility to work, liberals looking to avenge Trump and otherwise anti-science, monomaniacal anxiety-ridden adults. It's heartbreaking.

by jdhn 6y ago

lefrenchy 6y ago

Excuses like “protectng human life in the face of uncertainty” seem valid. History should look back more fondly on someone who tried to save lives in the face of unknowns rather than gamble them. Not to mention there is a gray are. You be a supporter of lockdowns but also believe the government did not sufficiently protect people/businesses. This is a multi-faceted issue, not a binary one.

caseysoftware 6y ago
I think this was a valid mindset last March when we had little trusted data, limited mitigation strategies, few treatments, and no vaccines. A year later, to have all those things and follow the same policies implies we either a) nailed it from the start or b) are not applying what we've learned. One of those is unlikely and the other unacceptable.
- 1experience 6y ago
  > I think this was a valid mindset last March when we had little trusted data Ordinary people had little trusted data. Experts had data from cruise ships showing a low infection fatality rate [1], data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2], data showing that the average Covid victim is 80 years old and has three comorbidities[3]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w [2] https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/16/news/coronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302/?ref=RHPPTP-BH-I251454518-C12-P3-S2.4-T1 https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-tho...
  - belltaco 6y ago
    >data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2] Asympomaticity or pre-symptomacity? >Experts had data from cruise ships showing a low infection fatality rate [1], data from the first quarantined cities in Italy showing 60% of asymptomaticity[2], data showing that the average Covid victim is 80 years old and has three comorbidities[3]. Yet Italy had crowded ICUs and Sweden had to beg neighboring countries to take some ICU patients from them. It'd have been all much much worse without lockdown. Your CFR assumes good critical care.
- lefrenchy 6y ago
  I’m not sure the US has been applying what we’ve learned, if we’ve learned anything at all. There’s no follow through on restrictions, people have been travelling and partying, etc... Hospitals are still overwhelmed in some cities, health care workers are tired and over-worked, etc... There isn’t enough political capital to end the pandemic or to provide meaningful economic support, so we’re left picking up the pieces of both at the same time.
AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
> Excuses like “protectng human life in the face of uncertainty” seem valid. Terrorism was the excuse last time, and we were told to support the troops. Now it's a viral infection, and we are told to follow the science. This should not ever be a valid excuse, especially since one doesn't have to be that old to remember the last time these sorts of excuses were made - to justify the West's horrific and brutal Middle East occupations. We knew better, and in the face of those facts this excuse is either made out of ignorance, or to cover up for remarkable amounts of incompetence. Neither should be acceptable justifications to the citizens of those countries who hide behind that excuse. > Not to mention there is a gray are. You be a supporter of lockdowns but also believe the government did not sufficiently protect people/businesses. Under what circumstances would a government be able to lock their people down and shutter their businesses, while also sufficiently protecting those people and those businesses? Which governments would have the resources to actually achieve success using these strategies? Governments have a responsibility to operate within their own laws and any country whose legal code allows for the government to overreach into the movement of individual people as they have over the past year, are at grave risk of morphing into the sorts of evil regimes we haven't had to deal with since the end of the second world war. EDIT: Programmers should have better social intelligence than this. Most people in this world do not want to live like programmers, locked up in a room looking at screens all day, transporting bits of electricity from one place to another. In fact, I would reckon many would rather die than live like we do. If people want to live this way freely and of their own choosing, fine - but to impose this on others as the only answer to a multi-faceted issue is just cruel to the broader public.
geoduck14 6y ago
I'd like to take a minute and add an important factoid that both sides should know. Humans are REALLY bad at responding to "highly unlikely" risk. With the corona virus, there is a really small chance (~2% depending on factors) that you die after catching the disease. Some people look at this and say "well, I probably won't even get enough viral load to get sick". There are sone people say "wait, I might survive, but then spread it to someone else, with X% probability - and EACH OF THEM might die". Both groups are EQUALLY INCAPABLE of properly assessing the likelihood of living a healthy life or dying (or something in the middle). BOTH GROUPS are responding out of "gut feelings" and emotion and VERY LITTLE LOGIC. I say this not to condem you - in fact I have been in both parties. I say this so that we can find common ground and MEET TOGETHER and acknowledge that is IS HARD, and we should try to work TOGETHER AND NOT DIVID.

ivirshup 6y ago

Living in Melbourne, Australia, where we went through some pretty brutal lockdowns, I think they’ll be viewed very positively. Life here is pretty normal now (I’m going to a concert with thousands of people this week), and there’s no vaccine resistant “Australian strain”. To me, these are good results from proactive lockdowns.

brmgb 6y ago
Meanwhile, I have now lived through two multi-months complete lockdowns, have been under a curfew since the beginning of October which prevents me from being out after 6pm and there now is rumors of a third lockdown with no end in sight. Initially I thought we were doing this so our government got time to organize a trace and isolate strategy and then that we were waiting for a vaccine but apparently a year wasn't enough for them to properly put something in place and the vaccination strategy is nothing but a sad joke so I'm starting to seriously wonder why we are accepting this.
- ivirshup 6y ago
  I’m sorry to hear that, that sounds very rough. It sounds to me like an ineffective broader strategy by your government. I definitely wouldn’t be voting for those people again, and maybe legal action around their incompetence could be an option. I think the examples set by Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea show that effective responses are possible. Lockdowns were an important part of these responses, but of course a lockdown by itself will not solve the pandemic.
  - brmgb 6y ago
    I actually mostly agree. I don't even know why I'm grumbling like that. I guess it's juste getting long and I somewhat despair at the obvious ineptitude of my government (but to be entierely fair they had already been shown to be extremely incompetent before the pandemic). Tangentially, my personal takeaway from the situation is that Europe is doomed. The combination of an ageing population, young voters absenteeism and political clientelism means that policies are now strictly geared towards pensioners. I fear a victory of the far right at the next election in France and fully expect a severe brain drain once the crisis is over. > I think the examples set by Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea show that effective responses are possible. If we remove China whose statistics are dubious, I find it remarkable that apart from Vietnam, all these countries are islands or can be considered as such with regards to immigration.

ummonk 6y ago

I supported contact tracing, testing, and forced quarantines, as well as strict lockdowns to reduce cases to the point where contact tracing and quarantines were feasible. That strategy seems to have worked in much of the Asia-Pacific, successfully returning society to normal. What I absolutely oppose is half-hearted “flatten the curve” lockdowns which prolong the pandemic over a long period of time while putting stifling restrictions on people. It’s the worst of both worlds, and simply letting the virus run wild would be preferable. I’m fairly confident that an analysis of population-wide QALYs will back up my view.

hprotagonist 6y ago

If this round is any judge, it'll be about a century, and we can do it all over again! dibs on not being the guy doing laps of my garden.

walkedaway 6y ago

I get the sense that time is now that reasonable, logical people have realized we screwed up with the overreaction. Back in late March people were already questioning the lockdowns once the unemployment numbers started rolling in. Every day since, we've just been piling up the data that suggests the reaction to covid-19 has been worse than the virus itself. Destroying a generation of kids is going to have significant long term effects over the next 50+ years.

throwawayyy1986 6y ago
There is a very unlucky band of kids that've been irreparably screwed over by teachers looking to completely abandon any pretense they're essential to society or have any responsibility to work, liberals looking to avenge Trump and otherwise anti-science, monomaniacal anxiety-ridden adults. It's heartbreaking.