4 ms·

The lockdown worked, though... We had the virus, then we locked down, then we didn't have the virus. Why didn't you lock down?

by mdoms 6y ago

dnautics 6y ago
you can't say it would have worked. There are places that locked down harder than the US and still fared worse. I'll remind you that the EU had 1.5x the population adjusted mortality of the US, before their immunization shenanigans; and that's despite the US having an irresponsible science-denier president.
- mdoms 6y ago
  Half a million dead Americans. Fair to say what you're doing didn't work.
  - snapetom 6y ago
    "the population adjusted mortality." I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and I'd expect a HN audience to understand how proportions work instead of just parroting hyperbole.
  - spookthesunset 6y ago
    > Half a million dead Americans. One of the hardest challenges of leadership is resisting the urge to DO SOMETHING when crisis happens. > Fair to say what you're doing didn't work. And yet western nations keep trying the same failed policies over and over again and getting the same results.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    Nobody is arguing that what the US did "worked". I am saying we don't know that what you are proposing would have "worked".
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    It worked as well as Europe and and better than most countries, Once you adjust per population size. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/countries-normalized.html https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/countries-nor...
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    It's not really cool to make nationalistic attacks like this here. FWIW I'm from Australia (Melbourne), which mostly eradicated the virus last May, then had a resurgence in Jun-Aug, and it took hard lockdown from early August to November to get the outbreak fully under control - effectively four months of pretty strict lockdown. We managed to beat it but it was hugely costly. Australia, like NZ, is an island with a relatively (compared to US and Europe) small, compliant population, so it's much easier for our governments to control our international borders and internal movement. But it was still incredibly hard, and slow. We did it, which I'm pleased about, but I understand why what Australia and NZ have done is not possible in the US and Europe; they have much denser populations and many different jurisdictions and cultures all meshed together, so it's much harder to restrict movement and apply restrictions consistently enough from one place to another. So, sure, take comfort that we live in places that were able to avoid major outbreaks, but resist preaching that any other country/continent could have done it just as easily, as it really isn't that simple.

The lockdown worked, though... We had the virus, then we locked down, then we didn't have the virus. Why didn't you lock down?

by mdoms 6y ago

The lockdown worked, though... We had the virus, then we locked down, then we didn't have the virus. Why didn't you lock down?

dnautics 6y ago

you can't say it would have worked. There are places that locked down harder than the US and still fared worse. I'll remind you that the EU had 1.5x the population adjusted mortality of the US, before their immunization shenanigans; and that's despite the US having an irresponsible science-denier president.

mdoms 6y ago
Half a million dead Americans. Fair to say what you're doing didn't work.
- snapetom 6y ago
  "the population adjusted mortality." I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and I'd expect a HN audience to understand how proportions work instead of just parroting hyperbole.
- spookthesunset 6y ago
  > Half a million dead Americans. One of the hardest challenges of leadership is resisting the urge to DO SOMETHING when crisis happens. > Fair to say what you're doing didn't work. And yet western nations keep trying the same failed policies over and over again and getting the same results.
- dnautics 6y ago
  Nobody is arguing that what the US did "worked". I am saying we don't know that what you are proposing would have "worked".
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  It worked as well as Europe and and better than most countries, Once you adjust per population size. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/countries-normalized.html https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/countries-nor...
- tomhoward 6y ago
  It's not really cool to make nationalistic attacks like this here. FWIW I'm from Australia (Melbourne), which mostly eradicated the virus last May, then had a resurgence in Jun-Aug, and it took hard lockdown from early August to November to get the outbreak fully under control - effectively four months of pretty strict lockdown. We managed to beat it but it was hugely costly. Australia, like NZ, is an island with a relatively (compared to US and Europe) small, compliant population, so it's much easier for our governments to control our international borders and internal movement. But it was still incredibly hard, and slow. We did it, which I'm pleased about, but I understand why what Australia and NZ have done is not possible in the US and Europe; they have much denser populations and many different jurisdictions and cultures all meshed together, so it's much harder to restrict movement and apply restrictions consistently enough from one place to another. So, sure, take comfort that we live in places that were able to avoid major outbreaks, but resist preaching that any other country/continent could have done it just as easily, as it really isn't that simple.