4 ms·

I was wondering if even The Economist was so out of touch as to fail to notice that the trend was moving away from lockdowns lifting, but I see that the article

by JadeNB 5y ago

I was wondering if even The Economist was so out of touch as to fail to notice that the trend was moving away from lockdowns lifting, but I see that the article is from July 3, when things looked rather different.

elzbardico 5y ago
Are lockdowns coming back in the UK for real? I had the opposite impression from the news in the last two weeks. Some concern about variants, a push for vaccine passports from Boris’ cabinet, but no much talk of lockdowns. Please remember, The Economist is a British magazine. There is a world outside American borders.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  I expect lockdowns to come back neither in the US nor in the UK, but hope for them to come back in both places.
  - brink 5y ago
    Yeah, you can keep your economic and psychological ruin to yourself, thanks.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      Nobody, including me, thinks lockdowns are good, but the effects of removing them too early (as my residence in the US did) seem to me to be even worse.
  - heurisko 5y ago
    In the UK, lockdowns doubled mental health referrals amongst young people [1] and there was a sharp increase in alcohol related deaths [2]. I hope they don't return, given we now have a vaccine. I also doubt their efficacy, with cases declining in some cases before lockdowns began. They are not a cost-free public health tool, and it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-mental-health-referrals-double-in-england-after-lockdown https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-mental... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/surge-in-alcohol-related-deaths-in-england-during-lockdown-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/surge-in-alc...
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > They are not a cost-free public health tool, and it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good. That is a good point, but it's not that we're weighing which of two decisions is good, only which is less bad. Certainly the laissez faire attitudes many places in the US, including my residence, have taken to dealing with the problem have also been not cost-free, and to say that it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good seems to me to be a dramatic understatement.
      - heurisko 5y ago
        I was pro-lockdown when we didn't have the vaccine, but don't know if all the measures the UK took were necessary to contain the virus, or if, on balance, certain policies didn't cause more harm than good. For example, public exercise with other people was banned, even though open air transmissibility is low, and exercise improves mental health and coronavirus outcomes. What also happened, in addition to the above, is that people also avoided hospital treatment, and other illnesses, such as cancer, were deprioritised. These included young people, who would have not have been statistically at risk of coronavirus, but died unintentionally due to conditions caused by lockdown policies. In this case, quality of life adjusted years becomes relevant, and you have to justify measures taken primarily to protect the old, over being able to treat the young. Of course when I say "lockdown" it will have has different meanings, depending on which country one lives in. I think certainly some lockdown policies have done more harm than good, even though given another pandemic, I would support other lockdown policies, like banning large indoor gatherings.
  - infamouscow 5y ago
    Stay at home if you're too afraid to go outside.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      I do! But I'm surrounded by people who don't, and who won't follow minimal health and safety standards, so that it just keeps dragging on.
- Animats 5y ago
  "Fog in channel, continent isolated". Really, though, the Economist isn't isolationist. As Fauci once said, "the virus sets the timetable". The Delta variant is a big worry. R0 is 8 to 9. If hospitals get overwhelmed, there may be lockdowns again, at least for unvaccinated people.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    You can't realistically have lockdowns for unvaccinated people. People who don't get vaccinated are the same people who have the biggest problem with lockdowns. They simply won't do it.
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      Well, you kind of _can_, to some extent. Here, for instance, you need a vaccine cert to go indoors in pubs and restaurants (unvaccinated people can still eat outside). That said, there obviously won't be the political will for that everywhere; even before this was introduced Ireland only had 5-10% of people saying they wouldn't get vaccinated, so it wasn't a huge deal.
  - ummwhat 5y ago
    The estimates I've seen vary from 4-8 so it's not a sure thing if we do/don't have herd immunity. I keep saying we should be masking and standing apart now so that hopefully we can nudge r0 down a bit and avoid lockdowns, but everyone's so relieved to be done that i may as well be pissing against the wind.

by JadeNB 5y ago

elzbardico 5y ago

Are lockdowns coming back in the UK for real? I had the opposite impression from the news in the last two weeks. Some concern about variants, a push for vaccine passports from Boris’ cabinet, but no much talk of lockdowns. Please remember, The Economist is a British magazine. There is a world outside American borders.

JadeNB 5y ago
I expect lockdowns to come back neither in the US nor in the UK, but hope for them to come back in both places.
- brink 5y ago
  Yeah, you can keep your economic and psychological ruin to yourself, thanks.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    Nobody, including me, thinks lockdowns are good, but the effects of removing them too early (as my residence in the US did) seem to me to be even worse.
- heurisko 5y ago
  In the UK, lockdowns doubled mental health referrals amongst young people [1] and there was a sharp increase in alcohol related deaths [2]. I hope they don't return, given we now have a vaccine. I also doubt their efficacy, with cases declining in some cases before lockdowns began. They are not a cost-free public health tool, and it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-mental-health-referrals-double-in-england-after-lockdown https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-mental... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/surge-in-alcohol-related-deaths-in-england-during-lockdown-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/surge-in-alc...
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > They are not a cost-free public health tool, and it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good. That is a good point, but it's not that we're weighing which of two decisions is good, only which is less bad. Certainly the laissez faire attitudes many places in the US, including my residence, have taken to dealing with the problem have also been not cost-free, and to say that it is unknown whether they have caused more harm than good seems to me to be a dramatic understatement.
    - heurisko 5y ago
      I was pro-lockdown when we didn't have the vaccine, but don't know if all the measures the UK took were necessary to contain the virus, or if, on balance, certain policies didn't cause more harm than good. For example, public exercise with other people was banned, even though open air transmissibility is low, and exercise improves mental health and coronavirus outcomes. What also happened, in addition to the above, is that people also avoided hospital treatment, and other illnesses, such as cancer, were deprioritised. These included young people, who would have not have been statistically at risk of coronavirus, but died unintentionally due to conditions caused by lockdown policies. In this case, quality of life adjusted years becomes relevant, and you have to justify measures taken primarily to protect the old, over being able to treat the young. Of course when I say "lockdown" it will have has different meanings, depending on which country one lives in. I think certainly some lockdown policies have done more harm than good, even though given another pandemic, I would support other lockdown policies, like banning large indoor gatherings.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  Stay at home if you're too afraid to go outside.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    I do! But I'm surrounded by people who don't, and who won't follow minimal health and safety standards, so that it just keeps dragging on.
Animats 5y ago
"Fog in channel, continent isolated". Really, though, the Economist isn't isolationist. As Fauci once said, "the virus sets the timetable". The Delta variant is a big worry. R0 is 8 to 9. If hospitals get overwhelmed, there may be lockdowns again, at least for unvaccinated people.
- spiderice 5y ago
  You can't realistically have lockdowns for unvaccinated people. People who don't get vaccinated are the same people who have the biggest problem with lockdowns. They simply won't do it.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Well, you kind of _can_, to some extent. Here, for instance, you need a vaccine cert to go indoors in pubs and restaurants (unvaccinated people can still eat outside). That said, there obviously won't be the political will for that everywhere; even before this was introduced Ireland only had 5-10% of people saying they wouldn't get vaccinated, so it wasn't a huge deal.
- ummwhat 5y ago
  The estimates I've seen vary from 4-8 so it's not a sure thing if we do/don't have herd immunity. I keep saying we should be masking and standing apart now so that hopefully we can nudge r0 down a bit and avoid lockdowns, but everyone's so relieved to be done that i may as well be pissing against the wind.