4 ms·

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 dismiss

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.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > > it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. > This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though… it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions. I have not made any wild guesses or guestimations about death tolls, nor made reference to such. You might try simply responding to my comments instead of trying to dismiss them by pointing to (alleged) mistakes made by others. > > However, we don't need a parallel universe… > 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. Do you have a specific reason to dismiss the Macmillan report's methodology or findings other than your own assertion that it's not possible to provide a report that isn't full of "speculations"? > > 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 :-/ Common sense is not the same as stupidity. > > - 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 I'd love to hear more on this. > 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). Those behind the [Great Barrington Declaration] have pointed out repeatedly that the mitigation strategies used in the past were different and would be more effective than what are known as "lockdowns": > Inconsistent with the standard pandemic preparedness plans that existed before the COVID-19 epidemic, lockdowns are, and have always been, a radical approach to infection control. You continue: > A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. If we're looking for things in this thread that aren't relevant, this would be one, interesting though it might be. Moreover, since many of the lockdowns were backed by law and punitive sanctions then what is socially acceptable is moot. > 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 chart is why "a lot of data on that already quite early on" looks hasty: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~KOR https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor... > This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. You keep using the word proof but I'm not sure in what sense. Scientists keep making the mistake of thinking it's possible. From a report in [Nature] on school closures: > Here we assess the causal effect of school closures in Japan on reducing the spread of COVID-19 in spring 2020. By matching each municipality with open schools to a municipality with closed schools that is the most similar in terms of potential confounders, we can estimate how many cases the municipality with open schools would have had if it had closed its schools. We do not find any evidence that school closures in Japan reduced the spread of COVID-19. Our null results suggest that policies on school closures should be reexamined given the potential negative consequences for children and parents. But if we're using special pleading arguments then this isn't possible, and nor is it even comparable with the act of comparing between countries. If only the US were as homogeneous as the Yamato culture! [Duke] university looked at school closures in North Carolina but instead comparing spread within schools to community transmission. How can two different environments with different populations be compared? Well, they take you through it in the methodology of their paper. I didn't see mention of interdimensional travel. We even have scientists and doctors comparing lockdown between… countries![Nature2] Not one of them is called Dr Strange, unfortunately. No, they simply compared things using methods that are well known. > 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. This is a dismissal prior to a claim being made, which makes it look more like a habit than a reasoned response. An open mind is more important than both common sense and IQ in ascertaining truth. > > 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. They're absolutely conflicting and strike me as a wild guess without proof. [Great Barrington Declaration] https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ [Nature] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8 [Duke] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-covid-safety-measures-viral-transmissions-person-schooling-are https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-... [Nature2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9

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.

brigandish 5y ago
> > it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. > This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though… it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions. I have not made any wild guesses or guestimations about death tolls, nor made reference to such. You might try simply responding to my comments instead of trying to dismiss them by pointing to (alleged) mistakes made by others. > > However, we don't need a parallel universe… > 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. Do you have a specific reason to dismiss the Macmillan report's methodology or findings other than your own assertion that it's not possible to provide a report that isn't full of "speculations"? > > 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 :-/ Common sense is not the same as stupidity. > > - 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 I'd love to hear more on this. > 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). Those behind the [Great Barrington Declaration] have pointed out repeatedly that the mitigation strategies used in the past were different and would be more effective than what are known as "lockdowns": > Inconsistent with the standard pandemic preparedness plans that existed before the COVID-19 epidemic, lockdowns are, and have always been, a radical approach to infection control. You continue: > A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. If we're looking for things in this thread that aren't relevant, this would be one, interesting though it might be. Moreover, since many of the lockdowns were backed by law and punitive sanctions then what is socially acceptable is moot. > 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 chart is why "a lot of data on that already quite early on" looks hasty: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~GBR~KOR https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor... > This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. You keep using the word proof but I'm not sure in what sense. Scientists keep making the mistake of thinking it's possible. From a report in [Nature] on school closures: > Here we assess the causal effect of school closures in Japan on reducing the spread of COVID-19 in spring 2020. By matching each municipality with open schools to a municipality with closed schools that is the most similar in terms of potential confounders, we can estimate how many cases the municipality with open schools would have had if it had closed its schools. We do not find any evidence that school closures in Japan reduced the spread of COVID-19. Our null results suggest that policies on school closures should be reexamined given the potential negative consequences for children and parents. But if we're using special pleading arguments then this isn't possible, and nor is it even comparable with the act of comparing between countries. If only the US were as homogeneous as the Yamato culture! [Duke] university looked at school closures in North Carolina but instead comparing spread within schools to community transmission. How can two different environments with different populations be compared? Well, they take you through it in the methodology of their paper. I didn't see mention of interdimensional travel. We even have scientists and doctors comparing lockdown between… countries![Nature2] Not one of them is called Dr Strange, unfortunately. No, they simply compared things using methods that are well known. > 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. This is a dismissal prior to a claim being made, which makes it look more like a habit than a reasoned response. An open mind is more important than both common sense and IQ in ascertaining truth. > > 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. They're absolutely conflicting and strike me as a wild guess without proof. [Great Barrington Declaration] https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ [Nature] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8 [Duke] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-covid-safety-measures-viral-transmissions-person-schooling-are https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-... [Nature2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9