13 ms·

I think that's exactly it. There is a tradeoff to be made here with likely deaths on both sides, and the government is choosing much higher numbers of deaths be

• zpeti 6y ago
  This pandemic is basically this entire story. COVID deaths are much more visible than the missed cancers, the depression and drug abuse caused by lockdowns, so basically it’s an easy choice for governments, lockdowns are better politically.
  • RobertoG 6y ago
    That argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It assumes that the numbers caused by the lock-downs are bigger than the numbers caused by Covid. It assumes that there is not positives to the lock-downs (maybe some people is less depressed at home than at their work, not deaths by flu, etc..) and, most important, it assumes that not lock-downs would not increase deaths by other causes (intensive care overworked).
    • kspacewalk2 6y ago
      The number of deaths due to missed TB vaccinations alone will be a very substantial percentage of number of COVID deaths.
      • ceejayoz 6y ago
        Maybe, maybe not. TB should be readily stopped by masking and distancing measures; we might get something of a respite from it. I'm not aware of any numbers in either direction yet.
  • ceejayoz 6y ago
    Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00091-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas.
    • GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Less human contact, less stress, less suicide.
      • imwillofficial 6y ago
        You are literally 100% wrong. Less human contact, more stress, more suicide. We are social creatures and crave human contact. (Generally of course.)
        • ceejayoz 6y ago
          > more suicide Except the actual statistics linked upthread say otherwise thus far.
          • YinglingLight 6y ago
            HN'ers follow experts like the religious follow prophets. HN'ers hold statistics to be incorruptible, as Christians do the Bible. Deluding yourself in thinking that the lockdowns haven't caused a rise in mental illnesses and suicides, deluding yourself into believing human physical contact has no importance. What won't you believe, if provided statistics from a 3-letter global organization?
          • imwillofficial 6y ago
  • lukasLansky 6y ago
    That is a narrative that misses the point of the thread and is generally not compatible with hard data. For example, the amount of suicides in US during 2020 went down.
    • peytn 6y ago
      Parent was talking about missed cancers and drug abuse, not suicides. Alcohol sales were up ~20% [1]—that too is hard data. [1]: https://wineindustryadvisor.com/2020/11/16/nielsen-covid-beverage-alcohol-insights https://wineindustryadvisor.com/2020/11/16/nielsen-covid-bev...
      • ceejayoz 6y ago
        Off-premises alcohol sales were up; the article indicates it's a shift from on-premises to off-premises, which... shouldn't be surprising, given a lot of those premises are shut.
    • AzzieElbab 6y ago
      And the number of deaths due to seasonal flues is practically 0. I actually do not think any of these statistics matter, because data driven decisions are not timely by definition. What mattered is that the entire western world failed to react in time.
    • Izkata 6y ago
      CDC only tracks actual suicides, not attempts. Attempts and suicidal thoughts are up: https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/12/16/pediatricssuicidestudy121620 https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/12/16/pediatricssu... Also, on the CDC stats, deaths by "unintentional injuries" is up by way more than suicides are down.
      • scarby2 6y ago
        Has anyone not had suicidal thoughts since the lockdown?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • usrusr 6y ago
    But people will also miss cancer screenings, get depressed and so on when they stay at home because of an unmitigated pandemic running wild. It wouldn't be 2019 again without government intervention. (PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?)
    • inglor_cz 6y ago
      > (PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?) I was literally looking forward to an expensive and unpleasant dentist appointment (dental implant). At least, some change in the routine.
    • eloff 6y ago
      > PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down. Fear to go anywhere near a medical environment. Long delays and cancelled procedures and appointments because medical professionals had other priorities.
      • tshaddox 6y ago
        Wouldn’t both of those situations be vastly worse if there were fewer or less strict lockdowns?
        • eloff 6y ago
          Sorry I missed the context for your PS. Yes they'd be worse without lockdowns. OP's argument is actually an argument for the side.
  • eloff 6y ago
    The story with lockdown is a lot muddier. There's a good argument to be made on both sides, and weighing which decision is best with partial data is difficult. I completely understand the initial lockdowns when we had no data. I would have done that too, although I would have acted sooner because I saw this threat clearly in January - why our governments were less competent across the board than some rando programmer is something I haven't forgiven. What I don't understand is now that we have data, we're still doing lockdowns with no attempt to publicly weigh the pluses and minuses and justify three decision logically. I mean maybe it's the right thing to do, but I want to see them put some real thought into the decision, and not do it because it's what they're before, or what's politically viable. There should be a clear logical argument being made, weighing the harms on both sides and choosing the lesser evil.
• mxcrossb 6y ago
  The point of the trolley problem is that it’s hard to make the right decision. Yet apparently anyone who doesn’t make a decision based on the move naive application of utilitarianism is a coward.
  • eloff 6y ago
    At a government level you have to be able to weigh bodies. Because there are often deaths or serious harm on both sides of a decision. Just because it's a hard decision doesn't mean there isn't a right choice that minimizes harm. This is also true of the trolley problem. In this case one side is clearly tipping the scales by multiple orders of magnitude more. To choose that side for political reasons is cowardice and unethical.
    • staticman2 6y ago
      I don't know if "weighing bodies" is the right approach to government, but even if it is people who "weigh bodies" are not likely to remain in power very long. There aren't a lot of humans who would support harvesting the organs of a healthy patient to save 5 sick ones, for example.
      • eloff 6y ago
        I put it crudely to be dramatic, but it is the core function of a government to choose between competing harms and benefits for different segments of the population (including populations outside their borders when it comes to foreign policy.) > There aren't a lot of humans who would support harvesting the organs of a healthy patient to save 5 sick ones, for example. That's a strawman. I'm not taking the position that the right decision is always choosing the least number of bodies. Maybe that is true, there are debates to be had there, but I'm not arguing that, and that's not comparable to the decision here with the AstraZenica vaccine.
        • staticman2 6y ago
          Harvesting 5 organs from 1 healthy patient to save 5 sick patients is a variation of the trolley problem, not just a random straw man I picked. The fact that people who are surveyed are fine pulling a lever to kill 1 person to save 5 people from a runaway trolley but don't want to harvest the organs of 1 healthy person to save 5 sick people shows that these ethical problems are "difficult" as one person said up-thread.
• de_keyboard 6y ago
  I think there were broadly 3 strategies: 1. Do very little intervention, but perhaps isolate the vulnerable. This was the "Sweden strategy". 2. Do big interventions if cases rise, but only so far as is required to prevent hospitals being over-whelmed. This was the strategy in most of Europe, and in particular the UK. 3. Do big interventions with the intention of reaching "covid zero", including restrictions on international travel. This was the strategy of Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and perhaps China (hard to get the full story). Having spent the past year under (2) I wish I was living under (3). Sure it's painful in the short term, but compared to rolling lock-downs for over 12 months?
  • the-dude 6y ago
    > but compared to rolling lock-downs for over 12 months? So far. Add 6, 12 or 24 months.
  • febeling 6y ago
    So why not choose (1)? This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What am I missing?
    • sofixa 6y ago
      That it doesn't work. Sweden had to go back on it, and in many countries trying to do (1) ended up with hospitals full - like France. Everything was done to avoid a third lockdown this spring, but hospitals are at 150% capacity and here we are again. Are you aware of some magic trick that negates that?
      • timr 6y ago
        Sweden did not "go back on it". They remain with significantly lighter restrictions than ~all of continental Europe: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... As far as I can tell, their most stringent restrictions are limits on group gatherings to 8, and closing bars at 8pm: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-health-agency-wants-restriction-easing-postponed-to-may https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-h... Contrast to France, Italy, the UK, Belgium, etc., where people have been forcibly restricted to their homes for a significant portion of the last year.
• jamaicahest 6y ago
  Except it's not the government, or any politicians for that matter. It is the decision of medical professionals, basically the danish version of FDA decided to stop using Astra Zeneca vaccine. They have that level of power here in Denmark.
  • eloff 6y ago
    That's the problem. They're strongly biased towards the do no harm side of the balance - even when inaction causes much greater harm. It's simply a blind spot for them. They're the wrong group to make the call here, and the politicians should overrule them.
    • scarby2 6y ago
      Politicians don't make that determination right now. Self driving cars are a pretty good example. There's evidence right now showing that most systems are safer than human drivers. Yet still they are not permitted for use despite the fact that it will almost certainly result in fewer deaths.
    • mint2 6y ago
      Doctors are supposed to do no harm. And erroring on the side of caution is what tends to happen in democracies. An authoritarian government is much more suited to taking bold and controversial action. I’ll personally stick with the overly cautious government.
• splithalf 6y ago
  No! There are NOT likely deaths on both sides. That’s the insanity! There are certain deaths on one side (no vaccine) and virtually certain absence of any deaths on the other side. It is cowardice and self importance triumphing over reason and morality. Imo
  • eloff 6y ago
    The blood clots have already caused deaths, unless I'm mistaken. At any rate it's not "virtually certain absence of any deaths". I agree with your conclusion, but the premise has some issues.
    • splithalf 6y ago
      A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. That we are so cautious as to halt rollout because of rounding error only speaks to how very cautious and rigorous we’re being with the rollout. People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. Some of the people will die because they read smart peoples comments in web forums and thought they would be safer not getting vaccinated. You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. People need to accept the responsibility that entails.
      • eloff 6y ago
        > You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. I'm not spreading any FUD. I'm as far from an anti-vaxer as you can get. I think you didn't read my comments. > A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. But it does suggest there is a problem there. I took issue with your no deaths on the pro vaccine side. That's not true, as you admit. > People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. This is sadly true. That's the same odds as dying from lightning in a given year. People suck at evaluating risk. I had many arguments with my parents about the risks from the vaccine, when it's literally lower than the risk of getting out of bed in the morning. People are irrational and it makes me sad. I'm also irrational, and I don't always catch it.
• doublejay1999 6y ago
  Despite having 1 dose of AZ already in my arm, it would give me great peace of mind to find some logical basis for this decision. Until then, I'll continue to suspect politics. Country after country appears to have taken a turn doubting the vaccine. It would be normal for one or two outliers to behave this way, but for so many to defy logic - appearing to take turns falling in line with the EU message - it starts to smell a bit funny. I've written this before, but if Britain (having left the Union) pulls this off and Europe continues to flounder, it is potentially catastrophic for the Union.