6 ms·

Yes, if lockdowns are too restrictive and barely make any difference, then we should stop demanding them. People smoke, drink alcohol and eat junk food would n

by NoPie 5y ago

Yes, if lockdowns are too restrictive and barely make any difference, then we should stop demanding them. People smoke, drink alcohol and eat junk food would never accept the level of restrictions we had with lockdowns. One thing is to put a warning on a box, a different things is to actually prohibit buying that box and smoking with a high penalty. And vaccines are much more effective and considerably less intrusive than any NPIs. The problem is that people so much overemphasised their effect and actively resisted vaccine challenge studies (with volunteers deliberately wanting to get infected) to speed up vaccine trials. The whole world could have been vaccinated by now and delta variant booster be ready by now.

eesmith 5y ago
And if lockdowns are not too restrictive and make a difference, they we should demand them, right? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Research and case studies have shown that lockdowns are effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, therefore flattening the curve.[4] The World Health Organization's recommendation on curfews and lockdowns is that they should be short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted. To achieve a balance between restrictions and normal life, the WHO recommends a response to the pandemic that consists of strict personal hygiene, effective contact tracing, and isolating when ill. As I pointed out elsewhere here, "lockdown" is a broad term. Do not change the goalposts. You wondered why we don't implement method to reduce deaths due to obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco. I gave you one a very clear reason. I most assuredly did not say that prohibiting the sales of tobacco, with a high penalty, was the only way to reduce those deaths. And I pointed to tobacco companies specifically fighting putting warnings on a box.
- NoPie 5y ago
  I know that lockdowns are a fuzzy term but basically we mostly use it to meant that we prevent people from leaving home except for buying food or going to work. By saying that lockdowns can also mean some light version of limiting number of people in buildings, and there they still could be good, is like motte and bailey fallacy. But lockdowns in this strict sense was the most stupid idea ever. Outdoor events had very little effect on covid spread anyway. If covid was a short term problem, it would make some sense. But it wasn't. The research is inconclusive at best. The studies are not on the level of pharmaceutical interventions. Remember how long it took to prove that ivermectin is not effective? Nothing with the same level of rigor has been done with lockdowns. I stand by my assertion that we don't implement prohibitions at the same level with smoking, drug use and junk food as we did with lockdowns. The reason for leaving home is to meet other people or visit places. If you close an indoor pub or a restaurant that's a measure but not really a lockdown as people could still order food or wine and eat and drink outside. So, in this sense lockdowns are equal to blanket alcohol prohibition. Even if it worked to some extent in 1920s in the US, people voted to stop it. It wasn't a recommendation to stay at home like a warning on tobacco box, it was an order with high penalties. And I think in Australia it is still like that. They have added exercise for valid reason. But what if I don't want to exercise but only walk around and enjoy nature or a beach?
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Without knowing what people mean by "lockdown", it's incredibly easy to have two different conversations. Why do you say the research is inconclusive? The Wikipedia link showing support for lockdowns as you describe is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881715/ . Some quotes: > Lockdowns are found to be the most significant NPIs in terms of variations to the Rt > The results, which where published in July, paint quite a grim picture which unfortunately has been later confirmed: measures in place after the strict lockdown is lifted are not enough to avoid the overwhelming of the healthcare system. > Early implementation of lockdowns has been found associated with large reduction of incidence. > The results confirm the effectiveness of lockdowns and travel bans. > Furthermore they suggest that partial lockdowns might be as effective as full lockdowns if implemented earlier. Or, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325386/ where Itay's red zone is closest to a full lockdown: > the red zone policy was by far the most successful in reducing the rate of growth of new cases, hospitalizations in regular wards and ICUs. > the red zone is an instrument that makes it possible to rapidly bring down cases and the speed of transmission of the virus and consequently both hospitalizations and deaths (being very correlated). However, it implies severe social and economic consequences due to forced economic activity suspensions and restrictions on the freedom of movement. Therefore, this choice can be considered as a tool of last resort in cases of dramatic spread of the epidemic or when the local health system is close to the collapse. > There is a vast literature on the effects of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of various measures on the speed of spread of COVID-19 ... Many studies have proven the effectiveness of these measures in reducing the spread of severe acute forms of COVID-19 You write "we don't implement prohibitions at the same level with smoking, drug use and junk food". I'll again point out the guideline that lockdowns are meant as "short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted." With evidence that it works - experience in enacting a cordon sanitaire for smallpox, Ebola, and SARS outbreaks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(medicine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(medicine) What sort of evidence is there that a short term intervention will help reduce deaths due to smoking, drug use and junk food?
    - 5y ago

by NoPie 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

And if lockdowns are not too restrictive and make a difference, they we should demand them, right? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Research and case studies have shown that lockdowns are effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, therefore flattening the curve.[4] The World Health Organization's recommendation on curfews and lockdowns is that they should be short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted. To achieve a balance between restrictions and normal life, the WHO recommends a response to the pandemic that consists of strict personal hygiene, effective contact tracing, and isolating when ill. As I pointed out elsewhere here, "lockdown" is a broad term. Do not change the goalposts. You wondered why we don't implement method to reduce deaths due to obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco. I gave you one a very clear reason. I most assuredly did not say that prohibiting the sales of tobacco, with a high penalty, was the only way to reduce those deaths. And I pointed to tobacco companies specifically fighting putting warnings on a box.

NoPie 5y ago
I know that lockdowns are a fuzzy term but basically we mostly use it to meant that we prevent people from leaving home except for buying food or going to work. By saying that lockdowns can also mean some light version of limiting number of people in buildings, and there they still could be good, is like motte and bailey fallacy. But lockdowns in this strict sense was the most stupid idea ever. Outdoor events had very little effect on covid spread anyway. If covid was a short term problem, it would make some sense. But it wasn't. The research is inconclusive at best. The studies are not on the level of pharmaceutical interventions. Remember how long it took to prove that ivermectin is not effective? Nothing with the same level of rigor has been done with lockdowns. I stand by my assertion that we don't implement prohibitions at the same level with smoking, drug use and junk food as we did with lockdowns. The reason for leaving home is to meet other people or visit places. If you close an indoor pub or a restaurant that's a measure but not really a lockdown as people could still order food or wine and eat and drink outside. So, in this sense lockdowns are equal to blanket alcohol prohibition. Even if it worked to some extent in 1920s in the US, people voted to stop it. It wasn't a recommendation to stay at home like a warning on tobacco box, it was an order with high penalties. And I think in Australia it is still like that. They have added exercise for valid reason. But what if I don't want to exercise but only walk around and enjoy nature or a beach?
- eesmith 5y ago
  Without knowing what people mean by "lockdown", it's incredibly easy to have two different conversations. Why do you say the research is inconclusive? The Wikipedia link showing support for lockdowns as you describe is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881715/ . Some quotes: > Lockdowns are found to be the most significant NPIs in terms of variations to the Rt > The results, which where published in July, paint quite a grim picture which unfortunately has been later confirmed: measures in place after the strict lockdown is lifted are not enough to avoid the overwhelming of the healthcare system. > Early implementation of lockdowns has been found associated with large reduction of incidence. > The results confirm the effectiveness of lockdowns and travel bans. > Furthermore they suggest that partial lockdowns might be as effective as full lockdowns if implemented earlier. Or, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325386/ where Itay's red zone is closest to a full lockdown: > the red zone policy was by far the most successful in reducing the rate of growth of new cases, hospitalizations in regular wards and ICUs. > the red zone is an instrument that makes it possible to rapidly bring down cases and the speed of transmission of the virus and consequently both hospitalizations and deaths (being very correlated). However, it implies severe social and economic consequences due to forced economic activity suspensions and restrictions on the freedom of movement. Therefore, this choice can be considered as a tool of last resort in cases of dramatic spread of the epidemic or when the local health system is close to the collapse. > There is a vast literature on the effects of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of various measures on the speed of spread of COVID-19 ... Many studies have proven the effectiveness of these measures in reducing the spread of severe acute forms of COVID-19 You write "we don't implement prohibitions at the same level with smoking, drug use and junk food". I'll again point out the guideline that lockdowns are meant as "short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted." With evidence that it works - experience in enacting a cordon sanitaire for smallpox, Ebola, and SARS outbreaks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(medicine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(medicine) What sort of evidence is there that a short term intervention will help reduce deaths due to smoking, drug use and junk food?
  - 5y ago