4 ms·

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”. Lock

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.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13674 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13674 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499782/#CIT0014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499782/#CIT001... These studies do consider the alternative of “no lockdowns”.
    - gjulianm 5y ago
      They do not consider it seriously. Both assume no economic cost from the no-lockdown scenario. Of course in that situation lockdowns cost, but it is an incredibly naive way to look at it. The assessments of those papers can only be done from a place of willful blindness and ignorance. Things they do not take into account: - The effect of a saturated healthcare system on the treatment of other diseases and accidents. - Non-linearity of the death rate. The more people are sick in the hospital, the less resources there are and death rate skyrockets. - The effect on the economy of thousands of people unable to work at the same time, due to being sick or having to care for sick people - The mental health effects on people surrounded by sickness. - Self-imposed quarantines and lockdowns. - Possible public order breakdown with the combination of stressful situation plus reduced government strength due to COVID. I mean this with no offense, but thinking that the only "bad" outcome of not having lockdowns is "a few more people die but that's it" is stupid. You should think seriously about it. There was no pretty way to come out of the initial wave of COVID. Lockdowns were awful but I really prefer them to the alternative. In fact, I would have preferred them to start earlier. If the lockdown had started seven days earlier we probably could have shortened by a month.

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.
- rosndo 5y ago
  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13674 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13674 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499782/#CIT0014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499782/#CIT001... These studies do consider the alternative of “no lockdowns”.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    They do not consider it seriously. Both assume no economic cost from the no-lockdown scenario. Of course in that situation lockdowns cost, but it is an incredibly naive way to look at it. The assessments of those papers can only be done from a place of willful blindness and ignorance. Things they do not take into account: - The effect of a saturated healthcare system on the treatment of other diseases and accidents. - Non-linearity of the death rate. The more people are sick in the hospital, the less resources there are and death rate skyrockets. - The effect on the economy of thousands of people unable to work at the same time, due to being sick or having to care for sick people - The mental health effects on people surrounded by sickness. - Self-imposed quarantines and lockdowns. - Possible public order breakdown with the combination of stressful situation plus reduced government strength due to COVID. I mean this with no offense, but thinking that the only "bad" outcome of not having lockdowns is "a few more people die but that's it" is stupid. You should think seriously about it. There was no pretty way to come out of the initial wave of COVID. Lockdowns were awful but I really prefer them to the alternative. In fact, I would have preferred them to start earlier. If the lockdown had started seven days earlier we probably could have shortened by a month.