3 ms·

Extended, strictly lockdowns do not work as you paralyzing the economy. It's easy to WFH in tech earning a big paycheck to call for lockdowns when you're not im

Extended, strictly lockdowns do not work as you paralyzing the economy. It's easy to WFH in tech earning a big paycheck to call for lockdowns when you're not impacted by them. Florida and Texas did not have extended lockdowns, and their numbers are not worse that the states that did, and in many cases better. Also, Texas cases went down 3 weeks after mask mandate was lifted. Watch Bill Maher - New Rules from last Friday.

NationalPark 5y ago
I don't think that tracks. Australia, New Zealand, and several countries in east Asia enacted strict lockdown measures and their populations fared better than the US's by basically every metric except a nebulous notion of having the "freedom" to spread an infectious disease. And - this should be obvious but you never know - a massive, uncontrolled pandemic also paralyzes the economy. As for Texas and Florida, I'd love to see some more details on how you're comparing them to other states. It seems like there are a lot of variables you would need to control for (population age and lifestyle, existing healthcare infrastructure, voluntary compliance with guidelines exclusive of legal requirement, etc.). But suffice to say, Florida is in pretty bad shape right now relative to the rest of the U.S., so I'm not sure it makes a good example for your argument.
- coldcode 5y ago
  Florida did better than 17 countries per deaths, but of course it's only a state. Not much to brag about. None of us here really believe any official state data either. A lot of people come to Florida, stay for a while, and then leave before they get sick, so it is hard to know how bad it was/is. My area had effective mayors who enforced policies, checked businesses, and spent a lot of energy in keeping people safer, and we did much better than many parts of the state where no one cared. Mask use everywhere I go is high which I think is the biggest measure of what works. There are parts of Florida where no one wears a mask or cares to do anything. I always wanted to see per capita cases/deaths per zip code or even voting district, but no one does that.
eightysixfour 5y ago
We need to stop looking at states and start looking at cities when determining success of different mandates. Los Angeles - 234.6 deaths per 100k residents San Francisco - 46.3 deaths per 100k residents Austin - 178.7 deaths per 100k residents San Antonio - 81.5 deaths per 100k residents
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ariwilson 5y ago
  We also need to look at how vulnerable the residents of the cities were pre-pandemic to determine policy effectiveness.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  The Austin and San Antonio rates are backwards.
throw0101a 5y ago
> Extended, strictly lockdowns do not work There's strict and then there's strict: > “This comparison isn’t an accident. [COVID deniers] are stacking the deck by choosing outliers that favor their argument,” she said. > The data bears this out. > North Dakota and South Dakota are both among the least restrictive states in the country with the higher per capita case rates of COVID-19 in the country. > North Dakota has had 13,036 cases per 100,000 residents while South Dakota has had 12,585 per 100,000, according to data tracking from the New York Times. > Vermont and Hawaii, on the other hand, have some of the lowest per capita case rates in the country (2,341 and 1,912 per 100,000, respectively) and among the most restrictive policies, according to data analysis from WalletHub. > This doesn’t necessarily prove that more restrictions are better than fewer, either — and that’s just the point. […] > “Even the very restrictive states weren’t all that restrictive when you compare to places like Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand,” Robinson said. “Without good quarantines, income supports, worker rights, a lot of what was done in a state like California was nibbling around the edges — closed schools and churches but open restaurants and bars.” * https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-do-california-and-florida-have-similar-covid-19-case-rates-the-answer-is-complicated#Looking-abroad-for-answers https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-do-california-and...

NationalPark 5y ago

I don't think that tracks. Australia, New Zealand, and several countries in east Asia enacted strict lockdown measures and their populations fared better than the US's by basically every metric except a nebulous notion of having the "freedom" to spread an infectious disease. And - this should be obvious but you never know - a massive, uncontrolled pandemic also paralyzes the economy. As for Texas and Florida, I'd love to see some more details on how you're comparing them to other states. It seems like there are a lot of variables you would need to control for (population age and lifestyle, existing healthcare infrastructure, voluntary compliance with guidelines exclusive of legal requirement, etc.). But suffice to say, Florida is in pretty bad shape right now relative to the rest of the U.S., so I'm not sure it makes a good example for your argument.

coldcode 5y ago
Florida did better than 17 countries per deaths, but of course it's only a state. Not much to brag about. None of us here really believe any official state data either. A lot of people come to Florida, stay for a while, and then leave before they get sick, so it is hard to know how bad it was/is. My area had effective mayors who enforced policies, checked businesses, and spent a lot of energy in keeping people safer, and we did much better than many parts of the state where no one cared. Mask use everywhere I go is high which I think is the biggest measure of what works. There are parts of Florida where no one wears a mask or cares to do anything. I always wanted to see per capita cases/deaths per zip code or even voting district, but no one does that.

eightysixfour 5y ago

We need to stop looking at states and start looking at cities when determining success of different mandates. Los Angeles - 234.6 deaths per 100k residents San Francisco - 46.3 deaths per 100k residents Austin - 178.7 deaths per 100k residents San Antonio - 81.5 deaths per 100k residents

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ariwilson 5y ago
We also need to look at how vulnerable the residents of the cities were pre-pandemic to determine policy effectiveness.
eightysixfour 5y ago
The Austin and San Antonio rates are backwards.

throw0101a 5y ago

> Extended, strictly lockdowns do not work There's strict and then there's strict: > “This comparison isn’t an accident. [COVID deniers] are stacking the deck by choosing outliers that favor their argument,” she said. > The data bears this out. > North Dakota and South Dakota are both among the least restrictive states in the country with the higher per capita case rates of COVID-19 in the country. > North Dakota has had 13,036 cases per 100,000 residents while South Dakota has had 12,585 per 100,000, according to data tracking from the New York Times. > Vermont and Hawaii, on the other hand, have some of the lowest per capita case rates in the country (2,341 and 1,912 per 100,000, respectively) and among the most restrictive policies, according to data analysis from WalletHub. > This doesn’t necessarily prove that more restrictions are better than fewer, either — and that’s just the point. […] > “Even the very restrictive states weren’t all that restrictive when you compare to places like Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand,” Robinson said. “Without good quarantines, income supports, worker rights, a lot of what was done in a state like California was nibbling around the edges — closed schools and churches but open restaurants and bars.” * https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-do-california-and-florida-have-similar-covid-19-case-rates-the-answer-is-complicated#Looking-abroad-for-answers https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-do-california-and...