5 ms·

Its proven. It’s physics. I can’t catch covid from you because we’re probably on different continents. Living across the street works as well if I don’t open th

Its proven. It’s physics. I can’t catch covid from you because we’re probably on different continents. Living across the street works as well if I don’t open the door. This has been tested for every transmissible disease every organism has had that we’ve managed to witness. Similarly, fewer interactions result in fewer opportunities for transmission. Reduce transmission and the numbers go down. What’s to prove here? Didn’t vote you down.

mavhc 5y ago
Also there's graphs, lockdown enacted, cases go down, lockdown stopped, cases go up, repeat.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Oh really? https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
  - iamstupidsimple 5y ago
    (This should be a submission in its own right.) Really interesting data.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      It will never survive. Looks like we are back to March 2020 levels of panic again based on how my comments are doing… sad.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      Looks like a very unbiased source
      - mavhc 5y ago
        I made a chart https://imgur.com/a/mI8OdpW https://imgur.com/a/mI8OdpW
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
breck 5y ago
Lockdowns are an incredibly fragile “solution”. It’s a multi agent problem with lots of probabilities. All lockdowns allow some “essential workers” to not lockdown. You could have only 2% of workers deemed essential—and there is no general rule since all geographies are different and in situations like the exact details matter—and have the exact same long term outcomes as no lock down at all. It’s fun to run multi agent simulations and see how easy it is to screw up any centralized plan through the injection of little probabilitities. In my opinion anything that does not allow people to exercise conditional probability at the last mile is bound to have negative expected value. Things that I do think make a difference: better airflow, more outdoor time, less obesity, better testing, a public equipped with better tools to diagnose and treat conditions at home, vaccines, better data infra and publishing of medical data, etc. Dumb blanket mandates that are applied across a population are stupid.

mavhc 5y ago

Also there's graphs, lockdown enacted, cases go down, lockdown stopped, cases go up, repeat.

spookthesunset 5y ago
Oh really? https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/ https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  (This should be a submission in its own right.) Really interesting data.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    It will never survive. Looks like we are back to March 2020 levels of panic again based on how my comments are doing… sad.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    Looks like a very unbiased source
    - mavhc 5y ago
      I made a chart https://imgur.com/a/mI8OdpW https://imgur.com/a/mI8OdpW
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

breck 5y ago

Lockdowns are an incredibly fragile “solution”. It’s a multi agent problem with lots of probabilities. All lockdowns allow some “essential workers” to not lockdown. You could have only 2% of workers deemed essential—and there is no general rule since all geographies are different and in situations like the exact details matter—and have the exact same long term outcomes as no lock down at all. It’s fun to run multi agent simulations and see how easy it is to screw up any centralized plan through the injection of little probabilitities. In my opinion anything that does not allow people to exercise conditional probability at the last mile is bound to have negative expected value. Things that I do think make a difference: better airflow, more outdoor time, less obesity, better testing, a public equipped with better tools to diagnose and treat conditions at home, vaccines, better data infra and publishing of medical data, etc. Dumb blanket mandates that are applied across a population are stupid.