9 ms·

Nonpharmaceutical interventions do work. With Internet and E-commerce, full scale lockdown becomes tenable. Together with mass PCR testing, the virus can be era

Nonpharmaceutical interventions do work. With Internet and E-commerce, full scale lockdown becomes tenable. Together with mass PCR testing, the virus can be eradicated. The virus can't teleport, and it is here to stay only because the decision-makers thought that it was the cheaper option to let it spread (it is not), then didn't want to admit being wrong. It is sad to see that with all the technologies available, the world is still in the middle of the pandemic.

grillvogel 5y ago
permanent lockdown should be encouraged because we have the internet and can buy stuff online? sorry but no.
- dongping 5y ago
  Either we do a full lockdown to reach zero COVID, like NZ and China did (while buying stuff online), or we would have to do prolonged mockdowns like in Europe. The Chinese have been living a mostly normal life (albeit with limited foreign travel possibilities, and sporadic lockdowns in isolated locations) for a year.
  - grillvogel 5y ago
    zero covid is unrealistic. how are things gonna pan out when the hypothetical zero covid nation opens up to outside travelers?
    - dongping 5y ago
      I would argue that opening up is unrealistic. How are things going to pan out, when we apply selection pressure to the virus, while letting the virus sieve through the whole human population, creating dangerous variants due to our leaky vaccines? [1] I would have had agreed with you if we had a sterilizing vaccine that would help us to reach herd immunity. But we don't. Those travels which cannot afford 14 days quarantines, are non-essential travels. We fortunately have internet and the possibility to do remote meetings. The only thing missing is tourism, though. That's sad, but better travel locally than killing people. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    Or we act proportionately and protect the weakest while allowing the rest of the population to exercise their right to be free from a life where the government licenses their every action.
nomel 5y ago
I think it would be useful for you to go through the employment by occupation percentages [1] to get an idea of the percentage of jobs that would be eradicated with sustained full lockdown, for those that can't work from home. 1. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.ht...
- dongping 5y ago
  How long would a full lockdown take? (a real one, not a mockdown) The experience in Wuhan shows that 76 days would be enough to eradicate the virus from a massive outbreak. So the loss would be way less than 20% of the GDP (since essential economic activities would still be going on [1], and there would be people being able to work from home. Government could still use financial instrument/regulation to alleviate the damage). I don't think the the US would be able to do such a large project, but I had thought that the European bureaucratic system was organized enough. I was apparently wrong. [1] To give some perspectives on the GDP contributed by different sectors https://www.statista.com/statistics/247991/value-added-to-the-us-gdp-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/247991/value-added-to-th...
  - nomel 5y ago
    > To give some perspectives on the GDP contributed by different sectors This is not the correct measurement of loss, since it's only first order. Second order includes the industries involved in the entire supply chain for each, the shortages that would be created, and spending for a significant portion of the population going to zero (or, with previous government assistance, not nearly enough).
jimmyjazz14 5y ago
Speaking for the US at least pursuing a covid zero approach now that we have vaccines that are very effective against hospitalization and death just doesn't make sense. You act like doing a "real" lockdown would be trivial but we have already seen that even light lockdowns have had serious side-effects. Its not March 2020 anymore, we have an answer and it is vaccines. Every public policy decision we make going forward should be assessed by asking the question "will this policy encourage better vaccine uptake?". Personally I think forcing people to continue to socially distance and such even after getting vaccinated leads to more vaccine hesitancy.
- dongping 5y ago
  Unfortunately, our current vaccines are simply not good enough. Just take a look at the data from Israel and Iceland. From the article, it was clear already from last year. How many other variants do we need, as we let the apply yet another selection pressure with the leaky vaccines? (AY.12 variant is now the dominant variant in Israel).
  - jimmyjazz14 5y ago
    Yeah you are going to have to back up your arguments with more than "look at Isreal and Iceland". We have dealt with the flu using leaky vaccines for decades, how is this different?
WhompingWindows 5y ago
The virus is in animal hosts already, so it probably won't be eradicated. Even if it wasn't in animals, there are countries with principles of freedom where some 10-30% won't listen to a lockdown. It's unlikely those countries will all change their foundational cultural principles. I don't think technology is the only factor, think of looseness and tightness of cultural behavior, think of self-regard vs regard for others. These things matter, it's not all about grocery delivery and Zoom meetings. Especially for the meat-packers who make the groceries in factories, and the healthcare workers who need to go in to the physical clinic, etc.
- dongping 5y ago
  Somehow New Zealand is a special country with principles of freedom. I failed see that how it is culturally fundamentally different from other western nations. IMO, the acceptance is mostly linked to the effectiveness of the initial implementations of the lockdowns. And the effectiveness is seemingly only determined by the initial strategies. Countries which went for elimination/eradication had better outcome, and thus higher lockdown acceptance. In countries which went on flattening the curve, people had the same (if not more/longer) disturbance, but less success (more deaths).

grillvogel 5y ago

permanent lockdown should be encouraged because we have the internet and can buy stuff online? sorry but no.

dongping 5y ago
Either we do a full lockdown to reach zero COVID, like NZ and China did (while buying stuff online), or we would have to do prolonged mockdowns like in Europe. The Chinese have been living a mostly normal life (albeit with limited foreign travel possibilities, and sporadic lockdowns in isolated locations) for a year.
- grillvogel 5y ago
  zero covid is unrealistic. how are things gonna pan out when the hypothetical zero covid nation opens up to outside travelers?
  - dongping 5y ago
    I would argue that opening up is unrealistic. How are things going to pan out, when we apply selection pressure to the virus, while letting the virus sieve through the whole human population, creating dangerous variants due to our leaky vaccines? [1] I would have had agreed with you if we had a sterilizing vaccine that would help us to reach herd immunity. But we don't. Those travels which cannot afford 14 days quarantines, are non-essential travels. We fortunately have internet and the possibility to do remote meetings. The only thing missing is tourism, though. That's sad, but better travel locally than killing people. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  Or we act proportionately and protect the weakest while allowing the rest of the population to exercise their right to be free from a life where the government licenses their every action.

nomel 5y ago

I think it would be useful for you to go through the employment by occupation percentages [1] to get an idea of the percentage of jobs that would be eradicated with sustained full lockdown, for those that can't work from home. 1. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.ht...

dongping 5y ago
How long would a full lockdown take? (a real one, not a mockdown) The experience in Wuhan shows that 76 days would be enough to eradicate the virus from a massive outbreak. So the loss would be way less than 20% of the GDP (since essential economic activities would still be going on [1], and there would be people being able to work from home. Government could still use financial instrument/regulation to alleviate the damage). I don't think the the US would be able to do such a large project, but I had thought that the European bureaucratic system was organized enough. I was apparently wrong. [1] To give some perspectives on the GDP contributed by different sectors https://www.statista.com/statistics/247991/value-added-to-the-us-gdp-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/247991/value-added-to-th...
- nomel 5y ago
  > To give some perspectives on the GDP contributed by different sectors This is not the correct measurement of loss, since it's only first order. Second order includes the industries involved in the entire supply chain for each, the shortages that would be created, and spending for a significant portion of the population going to zero (or, with previous government assistance, not nearly enough).

jimmyjazz14 5y ago

Speaking for the US at least pursuing a covid zero approach now that we have vaccines that are very effective against hospitalization and death just doesn't make sense. You act like doing a "real" lockdown would be trivial but we have already seen that even light lockdowns have had serious side-effects. Its not March 2020 anymore, we have an answer and it is vaccines. Every public policy decision we make going forward should be assessed by asking the question "will this policy encourage better vaccine uptake?". Personally I think forcing people to continue to socially distance and such even after getting vaccinated leads to more vaccine hesitancy.

dongping 5y ago
Unfortunately, our current vaccines are simply not good enough. Just take a look at the data from Israel and Iceland. From the article, it was clear already from last year. How many other variants do we need, as we let the apply yet another selection pressure with the leaky vaccines? (AY.12 variant is now the dominant variant in Israel).
- jimmyjazz14 5y ago
  Yeah you are going to have to back up your arguments with more than "look at Isreal and Iceland". We have dealt with the flu using leaky vaccines for decades, how is this different?

WhompingWindows 5y ago

The virus is in animal hosts already, so it probably won't be eradicated. Even if it wasn't in animals, there are countries with principles of freedom where some 10-30% won't listen to a lockdown. It's unlikely those countries will all change their foundational cultural principles. I don't think technology is the only factor, think of looseness and tightness of cultural behavior, think of self-regard vs regard for others. These things matter, it's not all about grocery delivery and Zoom meetings. Especially for the meat-packers who make the groceries in factories, and the healthcare workers who need to go in to the physical clinic, etc.

dongping 5y ago
Somehow New Zealand is a special country with principles of freedom. I failed see that how it is culturally fundamentally different from other western nations. IMO, the acceptance is mostly linked to the effectiveness of the initial implementations of the lockdowns. And the effectiveness is seemingly only determined by the initial strategies. Countries which went for elimination/eradication had better outcome, and thus higher lockdown acceptance. In countries which went on flattening the curve, people had the same (if not more/longer) disturbance, but less success (more deaths).