3 ms·

> I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed Which never really pans out (field hospitals, h

> I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway. I think there's also a strong argument that lockdown ends up decreasing the time spent outdoors, which promotes spread.

Clewza313 5y ago
If you're looking for a doomsday scenario, what's happening in India right now is probably the worst we've seen since the pandemic started. Essentially every hospital in every major city is full and there are patients dying outside.
- calvano915 5y ago
  Was also looking real bad in Brazil a few weeks ago.
  - greedo 5y ago
    Still is. I expect Brazil to exceed the US death toll in about 100 days.
- xxxxxxx12 5y ago
  They've got a fundamentally different society and lockdown is a luxury policy that only rich nations (and people) can afford.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > They've got a fundamentally different society You have to say more than this.
    - afrodc_ 5y ago
      Didn't India also aggressively lock down in the beginning as well? Not sure what point the Op was trying to make here.
- ansible 5y ago
  Yup. Having insufficient bed space and medical supplies will kill people that might otherwise have survived a Covid-19 infection. Anything and everything must be done in each country to prevent the hospitals from filling up.
majormajor 5y ago
> Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. "The thing you were trying to prevent didn't happen, therefore you didn't need to try to prevent it" is really curious reasoning. "It didn't happen, therefore it was because we did this things" is also a weak claim, but the reverse seems far sillier. Especially if you look at the hot spots where things got worst, like Italy or India. Instead of being glad we avoided that, we're whining that we had to do anything at all. > His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway. Again, this is a curious claim. If lockdown doesn't really change behavior, how can lockdown be responsible for the things it's being blamed for like isolation and economic impact? That is then the fault of the pandemic, and the natural behavior changes that resulted, instead! Note how toilet paper was gone from grocery stores BEFORE any official action was taken.

Clewza313 5y ago

If you're looking for a doomsday scenario, what's happening in India right now is probably the worst we've seen since the pandemic started. Essentially every hospital in every major city is full and there are patients dying outside.

calvano915 5y ago
Was also looking real bad in Brazil a few weeks ago.
- greedo 5y ago
  Still is. I expect Brazil to exceed the US death toll in about 100 days.
xxxxxxx12 5y ago
They've got a fundamentally different society and lockdown is a luxury policy that only rich nations (and people) can afford.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > They've got a fundamentally different society You have to say more than this.
  - afrodc_ 5y ago
    Didn't India also aggressively lock down in the beginning as well? Not sure what point the Op was trying to make here.
ansible 5y ago
Yup. Having insufficient bed space and medical supplies will kill people that might otherwise have survived a Covid-19 infection. Anything and everything must be done in each country to prevent the hospitals from filling up.

majormajor 5y ago

> Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. "The thing you were trying to prevent didn't happen, therefore you didn't need to try to prevent it" is really curious reasoning. "It didn't happen, therefore it was because we did this things" is also a weak claim, but the reverse seems far sillier. Especially if you look at the hot spots where things got worst, like Italy or India. Instead of being glad we avoided that, we're whining that we had to do anything at all. > His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway. Again, this is a curious claim. If lockdown doesn't really change behavior, how can lockdown be responsible for the things it's being blamed for like isolation and economic impact? That is then the fault of the pandemic, and the natural behavior changes that resulted, instead! Note how toilet paper was gone from grocery stores BEFORE any official action was taken.