3 ms·
How do you define "worked", and how long a period do you use to make that conclusion? Compared to e.g. Sweden the number of deaths from SARS2 per capita is lowe
by Ourgon 5y ago
How do you define "worked", and how long a period do you use to make that conclusion? Compared to e.g. Sweden the number of deaths from SARS2 per capita is lower in those countries you mention but the damage from locking down is higher. If the damage from locking down exceeds the reduction in deaths from SARS2 locking down is a net negative and as such does not "work". Seeing how as locking down is likely to have longer-term negative consequences it will take a while before the real costs of lockdowns can be calculated.
Even the premise of lockdowns "working" is questionable for infections which become endemic and as such will eventually come to all unless an effective vaccine is developed. If a lockdown can keep the bulk of the population free from infection until such a vaccine is realised it can work but the current crop of vaccines clearly does not meet those demands.
- Isinlor 5y agoI don't know what you are arguing against: > The real question is not whether they work, but the tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are hard. Also, objectives when balancing tradeoffs are subjective. But you can suppress the virus for as long as you want if you are willing to accept the tradeoffs.
- Ourgon 5y agoI'm questioning the definition of a "working" lockdown. I consider the trade-offs to be part of the definition of "working" in such a way that, as far as I'm concerned, lockdown does not work for this disease. This would change if the disease were to have a bad outcome for a larger part of the population or if the demography of the affected population was weighted towards younger people (like the "Spanish flu").