4 ms·

Deaths from alcohol != deaths from lockdown. Have you factored in the deaths from cancer, for instance? In the UK, the Macmillan Trust, a cancer charity, have e

Deaths from alcohol != deaths from lockdown. Have you factored in the deaths from cancer, for instance? In the UK, the Macmillan Trust, a cancer charity, have estimated that there are 50,000 missing diagnoses that will be a possible 17,915 deaths in the 12 months following the report[1]. Precision is often as important as accuracy. [1] https://www.macmillan.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/we-make-change-happen/we-shape-policy/covid-19-impact-cancer-report.html https://www.macmillan.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/we-make-...

raverbashing 5y ago
This is an important debate to have but the actual number is not directly measurable now. This can go both ways as well as in: more burdened health system because of less restrictions can't deal with cancer patients Increased consumption of alcohol can of course lead to more cancers in the future as well
hnlmorg 5y ago
It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Since we cannot do that you are all comparing the COVID deaths despite lockdown (which is still an order of magnitude higher then any of the estimates provided for deaths resulting from the lockdown). So you’re not making a like for like comparison. And since you raise the point that precision is often as important as accuracy, it should be noted that those MacMillan figures are due to COVID as a wider concern, not lockdown in isolation. Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown (remember that the U.K. only went into lockdown to slow the burden on the NHS). So you cannot really use that estimated figure in its entirety given it wasn’t solely contributed to by the lockdown. And in fact if we hadn’t gone in lockdown the NHS might have been further overwhelmed resulting in even worse care for cancer patients. Once again, we can only prove your figures here by spinning up a parallel universe.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example. States vary wildly in terms of economy and culture. While there's benefit in looking at each state and seeing what worked, that isn't proof that the same would have worked in all states (let alone all countries).
- brigandish 5y ago
  Firstly: > So you’re not making a like for like comparison. I'm not making the comparison at all, I'm pointing out the errors of making an out-of-hand dismissal of lockdown deaths and the faulty logic of the dismissal. > It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Two things here. The first is that it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. Most of human history has only had access to trial and error, and the hope of some insight springing up, and our ancestors did a fine job. We've got it easy. However, we don't need a parallel universe, different countries did different things, and - as the Macmillan report shows - it's possible to see that there's a link between the effects of lockdown (e.g. missed cancer diagnoses) and higher levels of mortality resulting from that, even if the precision is unknowable (which is won't be, it just won't be perfect). People aren't stupid, and the main point is don't compare deaths from lockdown with deaths from COVID-19, the questions are: - were lockdowns more effective than not? - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? - what lessons can we learn? It'll take a while (because of politics and cognitive dissonance / pride) but I'm confident we'll see that lockdowns were largely ineffective at best and detrimental at worst. Finally: > Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.

raverbashing 5y ago

This is an important debate to have but the actual number is not directly measurable now. This can go both ways as well as in: more burdened health system because of less restrictions can't deal with cancer patients Increased consumption of alcohol can of course lead to more cancers in the future as well

hnlmorg 5y ago

It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Since we cannot do that you are all comparing the COVID deaths despite lockdown (which is still an order of magnitude higher then any of the estimates provided for deaths resulting from the lockdown). So you’re not making a like for like comparison. And since you raise the point that precision is often as important as accuracy, it should be noted that those MacMillan figures are due to COVID as a wider concern, not lockdown in isolation. Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown (remember that the U.K. only went into lockdown to slow the burden on the NHS). So you cannot really use that estimated figure in its entirety given it wasn’t solely contributed to by the lockdown. And in fact if we hadn’t gone in lockdown the NHS might have been further overwhelmed resulting in even worse care for cancer patients. Once again, we can only prove your figures here by spinning up a parallel universe.

Izkata 5y ago
> because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example. States vary wildly in terms of economy and culture. While there's benefit in looking at each state and seeing what worked, that isn't proof that the same would have worked in all states (let alone all countries).
brigandish 5y ago
Firstly: > So you’re not making a like for like comparison. I'm not making the comparison at all, I'm pointing out the errors of making an out-of-hand dismissal of lockdown deaths and the faulty logic of the dismissal. > It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown. Two things here. The first is that it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. Most of human history has only had access to trial and error, and the hope of some insight springing up, and our ancestors did a fine job. We've got it easy. However, we don't need a parallel universe, different countries did different things, and - as the Macmillan report shows - it's possible to see that there's a link between the effects of lockdown (e.g. missed cancer diagnoses) and higher levels of mortality resulting from that, even if the precision is unknowable (which is won't be, it just won't be perfect). People aren't stupid, and the main point is don't compare deaths from lockdown with deaths from COVID-19, the questions are: - were lockdowns more effective than not? - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? - what lessons can we learn? It'll take a while (because of politics and cognitive dissonance / pride) but I'm confident we'll see that lockdowns were largely ineffective at best and detrimental at worst. Finally: > Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.