7 ms·

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 wou

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.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > 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. This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though. It's purely about making wild guesses about total death tolls without factoring in any additional variables. It's not even a statistical analysis, it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions. > 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). Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof. > People aren't stupid, I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/ > - were lockdowns more effective than not? > - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? > - what lessons can we learn? We had a lot of data on that already quite early on and bare in mind this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus). A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's. This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too. > 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. They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.

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.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> 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. This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though. It's purely about making wild guesses about total death tolls without factoring in any additional variables. It's not even a statistical analysis, it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions. > 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). Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof. > People aren't stupid, I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/ > - were lockdowns more effective than not? > - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? > - what lessons can we learn? We had a lot of data on that already quite early on and bare in mind this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus). A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's. This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too. > 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. They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.