5 ms·

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 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?
- NoPie 5y ago
  It is inconclusive because there are many other studies that show that lockdowns were ineffective. Do you know what is a metastudy? And that the biggest metastudy about ivermectin actually tended to support that it is slightly effective? So, how do we know that ivermectin is actually non-effective? Because those positive studies have big limitations that make the results very suspect. It takes a lot of time to read through every study, its methodology, limitations etc. I have had not time for that but others have done and those reviews have very big error bars about their effectiveness and overall evidence is not very convincing. Medicine is a field which is very complicated and as in stock market, past experience with similar things do not guarantee future results with different diseases. Researchers needed more than 50 years to realize that stomach ulcer is caused by bacteria. Before that they believed that no bacteria could live in such acidic environment. So, don't bring an examples about different diseases. It does work like that in medicine. But now everybody on the internet is an expert and reads one study, selectively quotes something without even understanding full implications and thinks that they have proven everything. No, that's not a game I am playing here. Especially your last question. My statement was that we don't forcefully take away cigarettes from smokers. I don't know if that would be effective or not but that was never for consideration. We don't do first of all because we value people's freedom to choose and we don't think that it is ever appropriate to force people like that.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    > there are many other studies that show that lockdowns were ineffective Where are these studies? I linked to multiple papers, themselves containing links to other papers, all stating that lockdowns are effective. Put up or shut up. Otherwise you're one of the people you're complaining about.
    - NoPie 5y ago
      Can you even summarize them? I personally read https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...

by NoPie 5y ago

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?

NoPie 5y ago
It is inconclusive because there are many other studies that show that lockdowns were ineffective. Do you know what is a metastudy? And that the biggest metastudy about ivermectin actually tended to support that it is slightly effective? So, how do we know that ivermectin is actually non-effective? Because those positive studies have big limitations that make the results very suspect. It takes a lot of time to read through every study, its methodology, limitations etc. I have had not time for that but others have done and those reviews have very big error bars about their effectiveness and overall evidence is not very convincing. Medicine is a field which is very complicated and as in stock market, past experience with similar things do not guarantee future results with different diseases. Researchers needed more than 50 years to realize that stomach ulcer is caused by bacteria. Before that they believed that no bacteria could live in such acidic environment. So, don't bring an examples about different diseases. It does work like that in medicine. But now everybody on the internet is an expert and reads one study, selectively quotes something without even understanding full implications and thinks that they have proven everything. No, that's not a game I am playing here. Especially your last question. My statement was that we don't forcefully take away cigarettes from smokers. I don't know if that would be effective or not but that was never for consideration. We don't do first of all because we value people's freedom to choose and we don't think that it is ever appropriate to force people like that.
- eesmith 5y ago
  > there are many other studies that show that lockdowns were ineffective Where are these studies? I linked to multiple papers, themselves containing links to other papers, all stating that lockdowns are effective. Put up or shut up. Otherwise you're one of the people you're complaining about.
  - NoPie 5y ago
    Can you even summarize them? I personally read https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness-much-more https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-effectiveness...