4 ms·

Stanford Dr Calls Lockdowns the 'Biggest Public Health Mistake We've Ever Made'

13 points by mrfusion 6y ago

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
> In the US, they have – at best – protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle down epidemiology. I wish this got more attention. The whole culture around covid is really centered on comfortable office workers talking about zoom fatigue and looking down on people that break the "rules" while the people that feed them are expected to keep working as usual, follow the rules about socializing and fun that have been imposed on them, and not complain.
- kjrose 6y ago
  Canada as well. It's absolutely bonkers watching small businesses forced to shut down and go out of business while Walmart has people packed in. The issue really is the people enacting the rules do not seem to have any real connection to most of the working class forced to suffer from them.
  - kietay 6y ago
    And are predominantly in the age group most at risk which will surely cloud their judgement
    - iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
      From what I've seen, we have failed utterly in protecting vulnerable people. The focus on blanket lockdowns and enforcing silly rules has distracted from hygiene measures that actually could have kept vulnerable people safe. Where I am, almost all the deaths have been in nursing homes, which were a hotbed for covid cases. Fining kids for having a picnic in the park did nothing to stop that, but that is what people liked to focus on because it fits the overall culture that has formed around covid.
Nekhrimah 6y ago
Not a health professional, but seeing the success of the New Zealand lockdowns, I don't think I agree with this stance. Long lockdowns of many months surely have huge impacts to mental health, and business viability, especially when governments don't step up with financial assistance to allow people to stay at home. But I can't move past the idea that if the entire world had just locked down, all together, for 2 months or so, we could have stopped this whole thing dead.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>for 2 months or so, we could have stopped this whole thing dead. The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. New Zealand has a very low population density, including in its largest city, and is geographically very isolated. What applies there doesn't apply in most places. New Zealand also has had to close its border completely for over a year, and even recently Auckland had to do another lockdown because there were new cases. Locking down the entirety of society, to stop a virus with a 99.6% survival rate and with the under 70 cohort severely underrepresented among the fatal cases is not reasonable.
  - armchairhacker 6y ago
    > The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. Afaik Auckland's lockdown is going to be a couple weeks at most. Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >>No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. If we have effective detection methods, we don't need to lockdown. We just trace and isolate any cases that pop up. >Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. China had far more cases than New Zealand, which goes to my point; New Zealand's position as an isolated island made it easier to contain the virus. AFAIK, Japan and Taiwan never did NZ-style lockdowns. Taiwan had very few deaths relying mostly on contact tracing. >>Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now. NZ has been isolated from the world for a whole year and just recently locked down Auckland again.
creato 6y ago
> At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the US, they have – at best – protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. This particular point is bad. Lockdowns have been imposed much more strongly in several places, and they were effective there. I agree that the US/Europe's half-assed lockdowns are probably doing more harm than good.
armchairhacker 6y ago
The real problem is that we should have locked down differently. Lockdowns were absolutely necessary, but the way which we locked down - what was allowed / restricted and the way we emotionally dealt with the pandemic - was really, really bad. - Half-assed enforcement, mainly using shame and fear. This leads to good people overcompensating and assholes ignoring the restrictions. Any level of lockdown is better if it's actually enforced on everyone. - Allowing and restricting all the wrong things. Boston had indoor bars and restaurants allowed but closed schools and gyms, WTF? People continue to work in-person but all leisure activities are cancelled. So (combined with bad enforcement) you are hurting good people and not actually mitigating the virus at the same time. - Worst of all, not the actual restrictions, but the hopelessness everyone expresses towards them. "Welp, looks like we have to isolate and be depressed for the next 6 months". You can hang out and have fun without spreading the virus, but most people don't even try.

13 points by mrfusion 6y ago

> In the US, they have – at best – protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle down epidemiology. I wish this got more attention. The whole culture around covid is really centered on comfortable office workers talking about zoom fatigue and looking down on people that break the "rules" while the people that feed them are expected to keep working as usual, follow the rules about socializing and fun that have been imposed on them, and not complain.

kjrose 6y ago
Canada as well. It's absolutely bonkers watching small businesses forced to shut down and go out of business while Walmart has people packed in. The issue really is the people enacting the rules do not seem to have any real connection to most of the working class forced to suffer from them.
- kietay 6y ago
  And are predominantly in the age group most at risk which will surely cloud their judgement
  - iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
    From what I've seen, we have failed utterly in protecting vulnerable people. The focus on blanket lockdowns and enforcing silly rules has distracted from hygiene measures that actually could have kept vulnerable people safe. Where I am, almost all the deaths have been in nursing homes, which were a hotbed for covid cases. Fining kids for having a picnic in the park did nothing to stop that, but that is what people liked to focus on because it fits the overall culture that has formed around covid.

Nekhrimah 6y ago

Not a health professional, but seeing the success of the New Zealand lockdowns, I don't think I agree with this stance. Long lockdowns of many months surely have huge impacts to mental health, and business viability, especially when governments don't step up with financial assistance to allow people to stay at home. But I can't move past the idea that if the entire world had just locked down, all together, for 2 months or so, we could have stopped this whole thing dead.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>for 2 months or so, we could have stopped this whole thing dead. The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. New Zealand has a very low population density, including in its largest city, and is geographically very isolated. What applies there doesn't apply in most places. New Zealand also has had to close its border completely for over a year, and even recently Auckland had to do another lockdown because there were new cases. Locking down the entirety of society, to stop a virus with a 99.6% survival rate and with the under 70 cohort severely underrepresented among the fatal cases is not reasonable.
- armchairhacker 6y ago
  > The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. Afaik Auckland's lockdown is going to be a couple weeks at most. Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. If we have effective detection methods, we don't need to lockdown. We just trace and isolate any cases that pop up. >Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. China had far more cases than New Zealand, which goes to my point; New Zealand's position as an isolated island made it easier to contain the virus. AFAIK, Japan and Taiwan never did NZ-style lockdowns. Taiwan had very few deaths relying mostly on contact tracing. >>Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now. NZ has been isolated from the world for a whole year and just recently locked down Auckland again.

creato 6y ago

> At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the US, they have – at best – protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. This particular point is bad. Lockdowns have been imposed much more strongly in several places, and they were effective there. I agree that the US/Europe's half-assed lockdowns are probably doing more harm than good.

armchairhacker 6y ago

The real problem is that we should have locked down differently. Lockdowns were absolutely necessary, but the way which we locked down - what was allowed / restricted and the way we emotionally dealt with the pandemic - was really, really bad. - Half-assed enforcement, mainly using shame and fear. This leads to good people overcompensating and assholes ignoring the restrictions. Any level of lockdown is better if it's actually enforced on everyone. - Allowing and restricting all the wrong things. Boston had indoor bars and restaurants allowed but closed schools and gyms, WTF? People continue to work in-person but all leisure activities are cancelled. So (combined with bad enforcement) you are hurting good people and not actually mitigating the virus at the same time. - Worst of all, not the actual restrictions, but the hopelessness everyone expresses towards them. "Welp, looks like we have to isolate and be depressed for the next 6 months". You can hang out and have fun without spreading the virus, but most people don't even try.