3 ms·

I was curious how claims like this line up with the incredibly stark difference between, say, the US and New Zealand: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualiz

by azakai 5y ago

I was curious how claims like this line up with the incredibly stark difference between, say, the US and New Zealand: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=United%20States&show=highlight-only&y=both&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=right&extra=New%20Zealand#countries-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr... The PDF here actually mentions New Zealand, as one of the studies is about it. But reading that, it doesn't compare New Zealand to other countries, but does within-country analyses (different parts of the same country, like US states, or the same parts at different times). I am not an expert on this topic, but isn't it fair to say that New Zealand's massively lower death rate is due, in part, to lockdowns? Without a lockdown to get things under control things likely would have progressed as in almost all other countries. With that said, I think it's possible that for most countries lockdowns might have a minor effect. If say California goes into lockdown but other states don't, for example, then the spread might reach it anyhow eventually. So I would bet that both things are true: lockdowns can be a critical part of a COVID response, even if on average perhaps they are not. Regardless, all this is moot at this point. The early lockdowns were critical for reasons like US hospitals not having enough masks and other protective equipment, and vaccines were far off. Lockdowns bought us time - they were justified back then. The situation is obviously different now, and perhaps they are not justified today in most places. (Again, caveats that I am not an expert on any of this.)

jdrc 5y ago
You could say that NZ, australia and china did something very different from the partial lockdowns in the west. they decided to eradicate the virus, while that was never the goal in europe/us
gruez 5y ago
> I was curious how claims like this line up with the incredibly stark difference between, say, the US and New Zealand: From the discussion section of the paper: >We propose four factors that might explain the difference between our conclusion and the view embraced by some epidemiologists. >First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates [...] >Second, mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. [...] >Third, even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by changing behavior. [...] It's plausible that new zealand was already predisposed to contain a pandemic well (because they're well isolated) and/or that their citizens are conscientious.
- slg 5y ago
  Aren't the first and second point in conflict? Point 1 is basically "lockdowns are unnecessary because people will behave in a safe manner regardless". Point 2 is basically "lockdowns are ineffective because they don't stop all forms of dangerous behavior". If people are willing to continue some dangerous behavior as part of point 2, why do we think they would stop other dangerous behavior without the lockdown enforcing that decision?
  - inimino 5y ago
    There's certainly no logical contradiction there, right? You have one group of Careful Carlas who always behave safely, lockdown or not. You also have a group of Reckless Rogers, standing too close to people in supermarkets and not washing their hands. If either of these two groups is too big, you won't see a positive effect from lockdowns.
    - slg 5y ago
      Is your argument that lockdowns have no impact on the behavior of the Reckless Rogers? If that is the case, why is there any objection to lockdowns when they can be ignored?
      - cuteboy19 5y ago
        The objection would be that they are a needless inconvenience
        slg 5y ago
        How are they inconvenient if they have no impact on behavior? Either one can ignore the lockdown and continue their usual behavior or one can't ignore the lockdown and their behavior changes.
      - inimino 5y ago
        It's not so much that they have no effect, it's that the effect isn't enough to bring R_0 < 1, so it's going to be at best a slowing of the natural spread, which in practice, you aren't going to be able to measure or prove.
tomp 5y ago
I’d argue that most is due to at-border quarantines, not within-country lockdowns.

by azakai 5y ago

jdrc 5y ago

You could say that NZ, australia and china did something very different from the partial lockdowns in the west. they decided to eradicate the virus, while that was never the goal in europe/us

gruez 5y ago

> I was curious how claims like this line up with the incredibly stark difference between, say, the US and New Zealand: From the discussion section of the paper: >We propose four factors that might explain the difference between our conclusion and the view embraced by some epidemiologists. >First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates [...] >Second, mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. [...] >Third, even if lockdowns are successful in initially reducing the spread of COVID-19, the behavioral response may counteract the effect completely, as people respond to the lower risk by changing behavior. [...] It's plausible that new zealand was already predisposed to contain a pandemic well (because they're well isolated) and/or that their citizens are conscientious.

slg 5y ago
Aren't the first and second point in conflict? Point 1 is basically "lockdowns are unnecessary because people will behave in a safe manner regardless". Point 2 is basically "lockdowns are ineffective because they don't stop all forms of dangerous behavior". If people are willing to continue some dangerous behavior as part of point 2, why do we think they would stop other dangerous behavior without the lockdown enforcing that decision?
- inimino 5y ago
  There's certainly no logical contradiction there, right? You have one group of Careful Carlas who always behave safely, lockdown or not. You also have a group of Reckless Rogers, standing too close to people in supermarkets and not washing their hands. If either of these two groups is too big, you won't see a positive effect from lockdowns.
  - slg 5y ago
    Is your argument that lockdowns have no impact on the behavior of the Reckless Rogers? If that is the case, why is there any objection to lockdowns when they can be ignored?
    - cuteboy19 5y ago
      The objection would be that they are a needless inconvenience
      - slg 5y ago
        How are they inconvenient if they have no impact on behavior? Either one can ignore the lockdown and continue their usual behavior or one can't ignore the lockdown and their behavior changes.
    - inimino 5y ago
      It's not so much that they have no effect, it's that the effect isn't enough to bring R_0 < 1, so it's going to be at best a slowing of the natural spread, which in practice, you aren't going to be able to measure or prove.

tomp 5y ago

I’d argue that most is due to at-border quarantines, not within-country lockdowns.