4 ms·

Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed worl

by simonh 6y ago

Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. The experience from the Spanish Flu, which seems to have similar overall lethality, is instructive. Many developed countries managed to lock down to some extent and keep the death rate from around 0.5% to 1.5% of the population. India failed to manage any significant lockdown at all and the death rate was a staggering 5% of the population.

jdminhbg 6y ago
> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. Great, so we agree that at any given level of lockdown, we should see some kind of marginal benefit vs less lockdown, right? So it does in fact make sense to compare outcomes between California, New York, and Florida?
- simonh 6y ago
  It makes sense given the level of actual compliance with lockdown restrictions yes. It's the behaviour that matters not the rules. As I said previously and we seem to agree, rates of compliance in the US generally are relatively low and that varies even within the US. Demographics is an issue, for example California has several very large low income urban sprawls where lockdown compliance was minimal. I'm making no moral judgement here, people are under severe hardship and we all have to make our decisions on our own circumstances, but it is what it is. What we do also has an impact on others.
spookthesunset 6y ago
> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Sure, only if you completely disregard the massive costs to these mitigations. The costs in terms of lost educations, lost careers, mental health, isolation, etc, etc, etc.... those all have to be factored into the equation. Sadly we are 11 months into this and people are still pretending like there are no costs. To make lockdowns worthwhile, you'd have to demonstrate orders of magnitude fewer hospitalizations and deaths. Haggling over which country or state did better than the other by 5% or 8% simply means that even if the lockdowns worked, their benefits are almost certainly not worth the costs. The impacts of lockdowns (or any NPI) should be clear as day to the common person looking at the data. Thus far, all I see are people nit-picking tiny differences between regions. Which to me is a very strong indicator that they were not worth the cost at all. In short, your line of thinking is a perfect demonstration of covid myopia. Nothing else but covid has mattered for 11 months. I strongly assert that covid myopia is a disease far worse than the virus. Civilizations in the future will remember this period for our myopic focus on one specific risk to the exclusion of everything else--the virus itself will be but a small footnote in history.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  > Sure, only if you completely disregard the massive costs to these mitigations. As far as monetary costs go this is really easy to do if you just force businesses to close and send them on their way with a pittance. Is there anything you can’t afford, as long as someone else is picking up the tab?
tjs8rj 6y ago
I’d be hesitant to call the issue preventing simply closing up for a few weeks (which I agree should have happened) “lockdown deniers”. We’re had mass protests and riots by the same people apparently for the lockdowns and the more recent scandals with politicians of all stripes caught breaking their own restrictions on indoor dining, not wearing masks, or breaking travel recommendations to fly to vacation homes. The problem there’s a myriad of problems, the most original likely being that covid got politicized in the first place.

by simonh 6y ago

jdminhbg 6y ago

> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. Great, so we agree that at any given level of lockdown, we should see some kind of marginal benefit vs less lockdown, right? So it does in fact make sense to compare outcomes between California, New York, and Florida?

simonh 6y ago
It makes sense given the level of actual compliance with lockdown restrictions yes. It's the behaviour that matters not the rules. As I said previously and we seem to agree, rates of compliance in the US generally are relatively low and that varies even within the US. Demographics is an issue, for example California has several very large low income urban sprawls where lockdown compliance was minimal. I'm making no moral judgement here, people are under severe hardship and we all have to make our decisions on our own circumstances, but it is what it is. What we do also has an impact on others.

spookthesunset 6y ago

> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Sure, only if you completely disregard the massive costs to these mitigations. The costs in terms of lost educations, lost careers, mental health, isolation, etc, etc, etc.... those all have to be factored into the equation. Sadly we are 11 months into this and people are still pretending like there are no costs. To make lockdowns worthwhile, you'd have to demonstrate orders of magnitude fewer hospitalizations and deaths. Haggling over which country or state did better than the other by 5% or 8% simply means that even if the lockdowns worked, their benefits are almost certainly not worth the costs. The impacts of lockdowns (or any NPI) should be clear as day to the common person looking at the data. Thus far, all I see are people nit-picking tiny differences between regions. Which to me is a very strong indicator that they were not worth the cost at all. In short, your line of thinking is a perfect demonstration of covid myopia. Nothing else but covid has mattered for 11 months. I strongly assert that covid myopia is a disease far worse than the virus. Civilizations in the future will remember this period for our myopic focus on one specific risk to the exclusion of everything else--the virus itself will be but a small footnote in history.

tinus_hn 6y ago
> Sure, only if you completely disregard the massive costs to these mitigations. As far as monetary costs go this is really easy to do if you just force businesses to close and send them on their way with a pittance. Is there anything you can’t afford, as long as someone else is picking up the tab?

tjs8rj 6y ago

I’d be hesitant to call the issue preventing simply closing up for a few weeks (which I agree should have happened) “lockdown deniers”. We’re had mass protests and riots by the same people apparently for the lockdowns and the more recent scandals with politicians of all stripes caught breaking their own restrictions on indoor dining, not wearing masks, or breaking travel recommendations to fly to vacation homes. The problem there’s a myriad of problems, the most original likely being that covid got politicized in the first place.