3 ms·

You claim lockdowns are effective because they are effective: if cases are going down without lockdown, it’s because of some unknown outside factor. If cases ar

You claim lockdowns are effective because they are effective: if cases are going down without lockdown, it’s because of some unknown outside factor. If cases are going down with lockdown, it must be because of lockdown. Lockdown is both necessary and unnecessary.

acdha 6y ago
Cases go down when the virus is spreading less. We know lockdowns are effective because that’s happened everywhere which effectively implemented them, but nobody is saying that it’s the only option: for example, if anti-maskers woke up one morning and decided to be decent people the rate would reliably slow, too. What doesn’t help is pretending that the risks aren’t real and haven’t been well-understood for roughly the last year — ask how many people would still be alive, in better health, and working if your country had simply copied the plans from Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Oh sorry, is South Korea in the ‘everything is going great’ list again? Last thing I remember they were in their third wave with restrictions for 3 months already. They must have forgotten how to wear their magical masks.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Again, the only people saying masks are magic are people like you who took an anti-science position and haven’t been willing to admit being wrong. They reduce cases but they’re not perfect, which is why some activities like indoor dining are inherently risky until we have widespread vaccination. Currently, South Korea is showing 9 cases per million versus hundreds in most of Europe, the US, etc. so we’re still talking about many thousands of deaths avoided by keeping spread 1-2 orders of magnitude lower. If you only care about the economy, ask how much money in treatment that’s saved or the lifetime economic output of the people who died early. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/south-korea https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/south-korea
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      > They reduce cases but they’re not perfect, Which is why the statement ‘if only we had worn the masks’ is false. And I don’t personally care but it is a sneaky way of turning people against each other and a way to avoid responsibility: If you’re a government which has wasted billions on lockdowns and it hasn’t helped, how convenient is it to shift the blame to all these silly anti-maskers. And I mind you, I am not anti science and I am not anti masks. I am against the statement ‘if only they had worn the masks.’ About half a year ago scientific ’authorities’ here said that if you get infected you must have done something against the measures, insinuating it was your own fault. That kind of stopped now that hospital workers turn out to get infected all the time. Are they anti-maskers? Do they not know how to avoid contact? Are they careless? Or is it unavoidable? To accept that, we also have to accept that you can’t get away with simply blaming everything on anti-science noncompliance.
spookthesunset 6y ago
That is the beauty of lockdowns. Their success is completely unfalsifiable and all paths on the lockdown flowchart point right back to "more lockdown". If cases rise, it is because "people didn't take it seriously" and "it wasn't hard enough". Result: Blame the public and lockdown longer & harder. This time, people will behave and it will work! If cases go down, it must have been because the lockdowns work and so we should continue them otherwise cases will rise and we will be back to square one. Never question the lockdown. Lockdowns always win! Lockdowns can't fail, they can only be failed. It's Science!
KaiserPro 6y ago
In the UK there is neat correlation between lockdowns and reduced detectable transmission. We can plot this quite neatly thanks to the fuckups that the british government made. because the UK is made up of 4 nations with different lockdown rules, you can see the effect the various locksdowns on similar populations. you can see them here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

acdha 6y ago

Cases go down when the virus is spreading less. We know lockdowns are effective because that’s happened everywhere which effectively implemented them, but nobody is saying that it’s the only option: for example, if anti-maskers woke up one morning and decided to be decent people the rate would reliably slow, too. What doesn’t help is pretending that the risks aren’t real and haven’t been well-understood for roughly the last year — ask how many people would still be alive, in better health, and working if your country had simply copied the plans from Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, etc.

tinus_hn 6y ago
Oh sorry, is South Korea in the ‘everything is going great’ list again? Last thing I remember they were in their third wave with restrictions for 3 months already. They must have forgotten how to wear their magical masks.
- acdha 6y ago
  Again, the only people saying masks are magic are people like you who took an anti-science position and haven’t been willing to admit being wrong. They reduce cases but they’re not perfect, which is why some activities like indoor dining are inherently risky until we have widespread vaccination. Currently, South Korea is showing 9 cases per million versus hundreds in most of Europe, the US, etc. so we’re still talking about many thousands of deaths avoided by keeping spread 1-2 orders of magnitude lower. If you only care about the economy, ask how much money in treatment that’s saved or the lifetime economic output of the people who died early. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/south-korea https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/south-korea
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    > They reduce cases but they’re not perfect, Which is why the statement ‘if only we had worn the masks’ is false. And I don’t personally care but it is a sneaky way of turning people against each other and a way to avoid responsibility: If you’re a government which has wasted billions on lockdowns and it hasn’t helped, how convenient is it to shift the blame to all these silly anti-maskers. And I mind you, I am not anti science and I am not anti masks. I am against the statement ‘if only they had worn the masks.’ About half a year ago scientific ’authorities’ here said that if you get infected you must have done something against the measures, insinuating it was your own fault. That kind of stopped now that hospital workers turn out to get infected all the time. Are they anti-maskers? Do they not know how to avoid contact? Are they careless? Or is it unavoidable? To accept that, we also have to accept that you can’t get away with simply blaming everything on anti-science noncompliance.

spookthesunset 6y ago

That is the beauty of lockdowns. Their success is completely unfalsifiable and all paths on the lockdown flowchart point right back to "more lockdown". If cases rise, it is because "people didn't take it seriously" and "it wasn't hard enough". Result: Blame the public and lockdown longer & harder. This time, people will behave and it will work! If cases go down, it must have been because the lockdowns work and so we should continue them otherwise cases will rise and we will be back to square one. Never question the lockdown. Lockdowns always win! Lockdowns can't fail, they can only be failed. It's Science!

KaiserPro 6y ago

In the UK there is neat correlation between lockdowns and reduced detectable transmission. We can plot this quite neatly thanks to the fuckups that the british government made. because the UK is made up of 4 nations with different lockdown rules, you can see the effect the various locksdowns on similar populations. you can see them here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases