3 ms·

There's your problem. There is no such thing as rational lockdown policy for an airborne virus. Pray tell: where exactly did lockdowns work? Surely not in East

There's your problem. There is no such thing as rational lockdown policy for an airborne virus. Pray tell: where exactly did lockdowns work? Surely not in East Asia where multiple countries are experiencing exponential growth in covid cases right now due to seasonality. Despite widespread adoption of masking, contact tracing, etc. Certainly not in Sweden, where they never implemented them, yet they continue to have either middling or above average results in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Also: no one ever expected the pandemic to be over in two weeks. We did expect our public health officials to stick to the second part, "to slow the spread". Clearly, that was a line to manipulate the public, as things quickly shifted to "until we have a vaccine". People on my side of this issue will never forget or forgive the bait and switch.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> There's your problem. There is no such thing as rational lockdown policy for an airborne virus. OP states that the original lockdowns were reasonable but then complains about continued lockdowns, and my comment was responding to that sentiment. You're making an entirely different argument -- that lockdowns were always unreasonable. > Pretell: where exactly did lockdowns work? Surely not in East Asia where multiple countries are experiencing exponential growth in covid cases right now due to seasonality. Despite widespread adoption of masking, contact tracing, etc. Certainly not in Sweden, where they never implemented them, yet they continue to have either middling or above average results in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This is probably one of the least intellectually humble/curious things I've ever seen someone write on hacker news. There's an entire literature base being developed on exactly this question, and the answer is very clearly "it's complicated". For each of your examples I can give a counter-example, and that exchange would be completely specious and unscientific political punditry. This is not a question that can or should be effectively litigated in the comment section of a hacker forum by armchair epidemiologists, at least not without thousands of hours invested. And certainly not helpful if not entered into as an honest search for truth without preconceptions. I don't feed trolls.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Unbelievable. Why don't you link some information here for the benefit of other non-trolls? Like I did below with respect to the (lack of) effectiveness of masks? "Troll", "misinformation", etc etc. Folks like you have a zillion ways to dismiss those in the outgroup so that you don't have to be bothered with making a real argument. It's how you were all completely blindsided by the possibility that covid was the result of a lab leak.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    I don't owe you a conversation. Is there merit in asking which public health interventions -- if any -- are effective responses to an airborne virus? Absolutely. Is it possible that certain policies -- some types of masking, banning outdoor gatherings, etc. -- were ineffective or even harmful? Yes, and someone should investigate those hypotheses. Someone with intellectual humility, the means to gather evidence, and the knowledge and time to properly analyze that evidence. Is this a conversation I'm willing or obligated to have specifically with you? Absolutely not. As for persuading the "persuadable audience" (whose size is probably approximately zero given that we're two nobodies knee-deep in an off-topic thread on an IT forum)? Go back and read your posts. You're doing that part for me.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      We can agree that those more concerned with tone than with rational public health policy are more likely to agree with you. You've certainly been polite. Fair enough.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        It’s not about politeness, and I’m surely not being particularly kind. It’s about exhibiting the intellectual humility and curiosity that convinces a (largely imagined) audience you’re interested in truth and not just grinding some political axe. Have a good day.
mariodiana 5y ago
The "two weeks" originated from the idea of instituting periodic, local lockdowns in order to keep hospitals from filling to overflow. The idea wasn't to keep people from dying from COVID-19, per se. The idea was that there would be some people who would be affected severely by the virus, but who could pull through if given supportive care in a hospital. What we didn't want was numbers getting so high that people who could have pulled through wouldn't because there were no available bed for them. That's the original idea behind how lockdowns were supposed to be used. But, returning to my original point, once things locked down, a number of politicians realized that they would be blamed for any deaths that occurred when the lockdown was lifted. These politicians received support from the "if we can save even just one life" crowd — which I'm characterizing as the neurotic.
- JoeyBananas 5y ago
  I couldn't agree more with your assessment, especially considering that the presidential election was occurring around the time when the lockdown began. Ultimately, it was the politics that screwed us.

throwawaygh 5y ago

> There's your problem. There is no such thing as rational lockdown policy for an airborne virus. OP states that the original lockdowns were reasonable but then complains about continued lockdowns, and my comment was responding to that sentiment. You're making an entirely different argument -- that lockdowns were always unreasonable. > Pretell: where exactly did lockdowns work? Surely not in East Asia where multiple countries are experiencing exponential growth in covid cases right now due to seasonality. Despite widespread adoption of masking, contact tracing, etc. Certainly not in Sweden, where they never implemented them, yet they continue to have either middling or above average results in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This is probably one of the least intellectually humble/curious things I've ever seen someone write on hacker news. There's an entire literature base being developed on exactly this question, and the answer is very clearly "it's complicated". For each of your examples I can give a counter-example, and that exchange would be completely specious and unscientific political punditry. This is not a question that can or should be effectively litigated in the comment section of a hacker forum by armchair epidemiologists, at least not without thousands of hours invested. And certainly not helpful if not entered into as an honest search for truth without preconceptions. I don't feed trolls.

chitowneats 5y ago
Unbelievable. Why don't you link some information here for the benefit of other non-trolls? Like I did below with respect to the (lack of) effectiveness of masks? "Troll", "misinformation", etc etc. Folks like you have a zillion ways to dismiss those in the outgroup so that you don't have to be bothered with making a real argument. It's how you were all completely blindsided by the possibility that covid was the result of a lab leak.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  I don't owe you a conversation. Is there merit in asking which public health interventions -- if any -- are effective responses to an airborne virus? Absolutely. Is it possible that certain policies -- some types of masking, banning outdoor gatherings, etc. -- were ineffective or even harmful? Yes, and someone should investigate those hypotheses. Someone with intellectual humility, the means to gather evidence, and the knowledge and time to properly analyze that evidence. Is this a conversation I'm willing or obligated to have specifically with you? Absolutely not. As for persuading the "persuadable audience" (whose size is probably approximately zero given that we're two nobodies knee-deep in an off-topic thread on an IT forum)? Go back and read your posts. You're doing that part for me.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    We can agree that those more concerned with tone than with rational public health policy are more likely to agree with you. You've certainly been polite. Fair enough.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      It’s not about politeness, and I’m surely not being particularly kind. It’s about exhibiting the intellectual humility and curiosity that convinces a (largely imagined) audience you’re interested in truth and not just grinding some political axe. Have a good day.

mariodiana 5y ago

The "two weeks" originated from the idea of instituting periodic, local lockdowns in order to keep hospitals from filling to overflow. The idea wasn't to keep people from dying from COVID-19, per se. The idea was that there would be some people who would be affected severely by the virus, but who could pull through if given supportive care in a hospital. What we didn't want was numbers getting so high that people who could have pulled through wouldn't because there were no available bed for them. That's the original idea behind how lockdowns were supposed to be used. But, returning to my original point, once things locked down, a number of politicians realized that they would be blamed for any deaths that occurred when the lockdown was lifted. These politicians received support from the "if we can save even just one life" crowd — which I'm characterizing as the neurotic.

JoeyBananas 5y ago
I couldn't agree more with your assessment, especially considering that the presidential election was occurring around the time when the lockdown began. Ultimately, it was the politics that screwed us.