5 ms·

We will never know since we can't measure the magnitude of an outcome that never happened. Adverse effects from fearmongering, however, did happen.

by gyulai 5y ago

gjulianm 5y ago
But we know what happened even with actions taken. In my city all hospitals were saturated, there were so many dead people that the army had to help and move corpses to an old ice rink. And that was stopped only by a full lockdown. I don't need to measure the exact magnitude to know that without taking any measures, it would have been terrible.
- rosndo 5y ago
  Just because your city isn’t equipped to deal with an unusually high amount of deaths in a pretty way does not mean that the lockdowns saved more quality adjusted life years than they cost. A year of life is worth far more when you’re 20 than when you’re 80. If the people saved by lockdowns were primarily old people with a few years left to live it would be pretty clear that the lockdowns were a net negative.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    > Just because your city isn’t equipped to deal with an unusually high amount of deaths Nowhere in the world was equipped to deal with the incredibly high amount of deaths that happened, nor with the incredibly high amount of sick people. > does not mean that the lockdowns saved more quality adjusted life years than they cost. Yes, because the death of loved ones, the sickness and long-term effects of COVID, the collapse of healthcare, the sick leaves of work and the self-imposed quarantines would not have had any effect in quality-adjusted life years. It's incredibly naive to think that life would have continued as usual without lockdowns. I mean, most people were going to go on lockdown regardless. We all knew people getting sick, going to hospitals and not being able to receive care, family members and friends dying... It wasn't fear-mongering, it was a genuinely scary experience. I don't know if you lived in places that suffered the worst of the pandemic or not, but it definitely doesn't sound like it. > A year of life is worth far more when you’re 20 than when you’re 80. A month of lockdown is worse than an 80 year old (who otherwise might live some years) suffocating to death alone in a hospital?
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > It's incredibly naive to think that life would have continued as usual without lockdowns. What a truly bizarre strawman. > A month of lockdown is worse than an 80 year old (who otherwise might live some years) suffocating to death alone in a hospital? You are very lucky if you got away with just a month of lockdowns. It might not seem that way, but this is actually a simple mathematical problem. How many young healthy people traded in a month of the best years of their life in order to extend the life of that 80yo?
      - gjulianm 5y ago
        You can’t seriously tell me that I’m making a bizarre strawman argument and then proceed to repeat the exact thing I’m criticizing. It’s not “simple math”. Lockdowns weren’t just to “extend life of a few 80 yo”, even though I personally think it was a worthy “trade”. What do you think would have happened without lockdowns? How many months of “the best years of their lives” would young healthy people have lost to self-imposed isolation, sickness and loss?
        rosndo 5y ago
        Why do you think that this does not come down to simple math? The lockdowns either had a positive or negative impact on total QALYs, this is quantifiable. And even if the outcome was truly positive, was it truly worth the financial cost? Current research seems to indicate that we vastly overpaid in terms of $ per QALY.
        gjulianm 5y ago
        Again, the question is “What do you think would have happened without lockdowns?”. Most of the research you mention, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t take into account the amount of damage that no lockdowns would have caused, not only on “life of old people” but on everyone, and not only from direct effects of the disease. That’s the quid here. What you think would have happened without lockdowns and letting a highly contagious, severe disease run without control.
sofixa 5y ago
Sweden didn't do lockdowns, and suffered the same adverse effects but with multiple times the deaths of their neighbours.
- rosndo 5y ago
  If they didn’t do lockdowns, how could they have suffered the same adverse effects?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Because the adverse effects came from the pandemic, and lockdowns were merely a mitigating tactic with similar adverse effects. When people are sick, they'll stay home, not work and isolate, lockdown or no lockdown.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      So they didn’t suffer the same adverse effects.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        They did. Economic downturn, massive amounts of people being stuck at home ( either in isolation due to being sick or old/immunocompromised/etc. afraid of going out).

We will never know since we can't measure the magnitude of an outcome that never happened. Adverse effects from fearmongering, however, did happen.

by gyulai 5y ago

We will never know since we can't measure the magnitude of an outcome that never happened. Adverse effects from fearmongering, however, did happen.

gjulianm 5y ago

But we know what happened even with actions taken. In my city all hospitals were saturated, there were so many dead people that the army had to help and move corpses to an old ice rink. And that was stopped only by a full lockdown. I don't need to measure the exact magnitude to know that without taking any measures, it would have been terrible.

rosndo 5y ago
Just because your city isn’t equipped to deal with an unusually high amount of deaths in a pretty way does not mean that the lockdowns saved more quality adjusted life years than they cost. A year of life is worth far more when you’re 20 than when you’re 80. If the people saved by lockdowns were primarily old people with a few years left to live it would be pretty clear that the lockdowns were a net negative.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > Just because your city isn’t equipped to deal with an unusually high amount of deaths Nowhere in the world was equipped to deal with the incredibly high amount of deaths that happened, nor with the incredibly high amount of sick people. > does not mean that the lockdowns saved more quality adjusted life years than they cost. Yes, because the death of loved ones, the sickness and long-term effects of COVID, the collapse of healthcare, the sick leaves of work and the self-imposed quarantines would not have had any effect in quality-adjusted life years. It's incredibly naive to think that life would have continued as usual without lockdowns. I mean, most people were going to go on lockdown regardless. We all knew people getting sick, going to hospitals and not being able to receive care, family members and friends dying... It wasn't fear-mongering, it was a genuinely scary experience. I don't know if you lived in places that suffered the worst of the pandemic or not, but it definitely doesn't sound like it. > A year of life is worth far more when you’re 20 than when you’re 80. A month of lockdown is worse than an 80 year old (who otherwise might live some years) suffocating to death alone in a hospital?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > It's incredibly naive to think that life would have continued as usual without lockdowns. What a truly bizarre strawman. > A month of lockdown is worse than an 80 year old (who otherwise might live some years) suffocating to death alone in a hospital? You are very lucky if you got away with just a month of lockdowns. It might not seem that way, but this is actually a simple mathematical problem. How many young healthy people traded in a month of the best years of their life in order to extend the life of that 80yo?
    - gjulianm 5y ago
      You can’t seriously tell me that I’m making a bizarre strawman argument and then proceed to repeat the exact thing I’m criticizing. It’s not “simple math”. Lockdowns weren’t just to “extend life of a few 80 yo”, even though I personally think it was a worthy “trade”. What do you think would have happened without lockdowns? How many months of “the best years of their lives” would young healthy people have lost to self-imposed isolation, sickness and loss?
      - rosndo 5y ago
        Why do you think that this does not come down to simple math? The lockdowns either had a positive or negative impact on total QALYs, this is quantifiable. And even if the outcome was truly positive, was it truly worth the financial cost? Current research seems to indicate that we vastly overpaid in terms of $ per QALY.
        gjulianm 5y ago
        Again, the question is “What do you think would have happened without lockdowns?”. Most of the research you mention, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t take into account the amount of damage that no lockdowns would have caused, not only on “life of old people” but on everyone, and not only from direct effects of the disease. That’s the quid here. What you think would have happened without lockdowns and letting a highly contagious, severe disease run without control.

sofixa 5y ago

Sweden didn't do lockdowns, and suffered the same adverse effects but with multiple times the deaths of their neighbours.

rosndo 5y ago
If they didn’t do lockdowns, how could they have suffered the same adverse effects?
- sofixa 5y ago
  Because the adverse effects came from the pandemic, and lockdowns were merely a mitigating tactic with similar adverse effects. When people are sick, they'll stay home, not work and isolate, lockdown or no lockdown.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    So they didn’t suffer the same adverse effects.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      They did. Economic downturn, massive amounts of people being stuck at home ( either in isolation due to being sick or old/immunocompromised/etc. afraid of going out).