5 ms·

While the post-9/11 security “theatre” was mostly window dressing, it’s an undeniable fact that the lockdowns and masking has saved many, many lives.

barbacoa 5y ago
Did all that prevent infection or simply spread out the infection propagation from a few weeks to 1.5 years?
- contriban 5y ago
  You have a point in that this should not have lasted this long if the world was able to lock down completely until 0 cases for 8 weeks. Other than that, what do you think would have happened if life continued unperturbed in early 2020? Do you think we’d be over it already? I don’t think that’s correct, to be polite.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    It's too late. The genie is out of the bottle. The moment the virus escaped Wuhan there was/is no stopping it. You'll never get a coordinated world wide lockdown sufficient to stop all infection. And being a strain of flu it will likely coevolve with any vaccine we throw at it. Local strains are already showing resistance against various vaccines. There was even a covid-19 breakout amongst the Yankees team even though they were all vaccinated.
    - StrictDabbler 5y ago
      Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. Influenza belongs to a different family of viruses called Orthomyxoviridae. Saying that covid-19 is a strain of flu is like saying that lions are a form of dog.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  Spreading the infection from a few weeks to 1.5 years saves lives. If you look at total cases vs hospital capacity it’s easy to see why. If you have rapid case growth outpacing hospital beds you see deaths like we saw early on in NYC and Italy or currently in India. On top of that, it kept cases down until vaccines became available, cutting down on total possibly infected populations.
bleah1000 5y ago
What evidence is there that this is true? The problem is assuming that no mask mandate means nobody wears masks. As the top poster said, people still wore masks, but it wasn't forced. I suspect this is true of a number of places that didn't have mask mandates. Also, what we are calling lock downs, weren't really good lock downs. People still went out, people still went to the grocery store and other stores, and other places. I happen to be friends with a contact tracer, and the problem was the lock downs actually made the pandemic worst in a number of cases. If someone got sick in a household, everyone in the house got sick. I would argue if everyone is stuck in the house together and someone gets sick, there is no escape. By the time the person has even figured out they are sick, it's too late because everyone is home all of the time. Now, that's not to say without lock downs this wouldn't have still happened, but the lock downs practically guarantee that someone sharing a house with a sick person is spending most of their day in that location exposed to covid. I think it's too early to know if lock downs were that useful. I don't think we will know for years as more data is gathered and people look at the kind of lock downs, and places that didn't do lock downs. Maybe some places that didn't do lock downs did well due to a different climate, or because they were more rural. But this would lead to the conclusion that maybe lock downs are not the best solution for all places, maybe they are good for cities and not as useful for rural areas. I think that's something that we might find out in the future.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  I’m not going to source hunt for you when the information you seek is so readily available across the internet and any opinion to the contrary is simply an attempt at maintaining ones own ignorant bias on the facts. By the sound of your resistance to my original comment though, no amount of sources will prove to you that the measures taken saved lives.
  - raarts 5y ago
    I have my doubts as well. Looking at the graphs from a distance, they seem to be dominated much more by seasonality than by lockdowns etc. Also, Sweden, Florida. Strict lockdowns may make a difference, but given the fact that 40% of the population just can not work from home, they're never really strict. For me the 'undeniable' part of your statement was far too strong.

barbacoa 5y ago

Did all that prevent infection or simply spread out the infection propagation from a few weeks to 1.5 years?

contriban 5y ago
You have a point in that this should not have lasted this long if the world was able to lock down completely until 0 cases for 8 weeks. Other than that, what do you think would have happened if life continued unperturbed in early 2020? Do you think we’d be over it already? I don’t think that’s correct, to be polite.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  It's too late. The genie is out of the bottle. The moment the virus escaped Wuhan there was/is no stopping it. You'll never get a coordinated world wide lockdown sufficient to stop all infection. And being a strain of flu it will likely coevolve with any vaccine we throw at it. Local strains are already showing resistance against various vaccines. There was even a covid-19 breakout amongst the Yankees team even though they were all vaccinated.
  - StrictDabbler 5y ago
    Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. Influenza belongs to a different family of viruses called Orthomyxoviridae. Saying that covid-19 is a strain of flu is like saying that lions are a form of dog.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
Spreading the infection from a few weeks to 1.5 years saves lives. If you look at total cases vs hospital capacity it’s easy to see why. If you have rapid case growth outpacing hospital beds you see deaths like we saw early on in NYC and Italy or currently in India. On top of that, it kept cases down until vaccines became available, cutting down on total possibly infected populations.

bleah1000 5y ago

What evidence is there that this is true? The problem is assuming that no mask mandate means nobody wears masks. As the top poster said, people still wore masks, but it wasn't forced. I suspect this is true of a number of places that didn't have mask mandates. Also, what we are calling lock downs, weren't really good lock downs. People still went out, people still went to the grocery store and other stores, and other places. I happen to be friends with a contact tracer, and the problem was the lock downs actually made the pandemic worst in a number of cases. If someone got sick in a household, everyone in the house got sick. I would argue if everyone is stuck in the house together and someone gets sick, there is no escape. By the time the person has even figured out they are sick, it's too late because everyone is home all of the time. Now, that's not to say without lock downs this wouldn't have still happened, but the lock downs practically guarantee that someone sharing a house with a sick person is spending most of their day in that location exposed to covid. I think it's too early to know if lock downs were that useful. I don't think we will know for years as more data is gathered and people look at the kind of lock downs, and places that didn't do lock downs. Maybe some places that didn't do lock downs did well due to a different climate, or because they were more rural. But this would lead to the conclusion that maybe lock downs are not the best solution for all places, maybe they are good for cities and not as useful for rural areas. I think that's something that we might find out in the future.

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
I’m not going to source hunt for you when the information you seek is so readily available across the internet and any opinion to the contrary is simply an attempt at maintaining ones own ignorant bias on the facts. By the sound of your resistance to my original comment though, no amount of sources will prove to you that the measures taken saved lives.
- raarts 5y ago
  I have my doubts as well. Looking at the graphs from a distance, they seem to be dominated much more by seasonality than by lockdowns etc. Also, Sweden, Florida. Strict lockdowns may make a difference, but given the fact that 40% of the population just can not work from home, they're never really strict. For me the 'undeniable' part of your statement was far too strong.