4 ms·

> ignore how much worse it would have been if lockdowns were not implemented, if air travel continued, and if we treated it like the flu This is some pretty he

> ignore how much worse it would have been if lockdowns were not implemented, if air travel continued, and if we treated it like the flu This is some pretty heavy speculation. I agree the article was plenty biased (what isn't, as we've all learned these days), but I don't think it's a meritless argument, and it certainly isn't the straw man that you painted.

TimPC 4y ago
Everything we know about infection science suggests that it would have been a lot worse. Travel restrictions dramatically reduce inter regional spread and lockdowns help reduce the number of people catching COVID locally. Given what we know about how the virus spreads it is basically impossible to argue these measures weren’t effective. There can be some degree of uncertainty over effect size but even comparative studies looking at similar regions that practiced good or bad lockdown policies had shown large effects. Of course anti-vaxxers want to compare bad lockdown policies in rural Utah to good ones in NYC and ignore population density and major factors that cause increased spread that are independent of lockdown policy. But real scientists can do better science than that. Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more.
- origin_path 4y ago
  No, lockdowns and masking had no effect independent of things like population density, that's been proven beyond doubt now. Even the German government formally reached that conclusion and they are some of the most fanatical maskers and lockdowners out there! What we (read: governments and academics) "know" about infection is clearly wrong. The predictions don't match real world outcomes. Germ theory is incomplete. "Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more." Great. Go and read critically the studies and data sets on these topics and you'll see why you need to revise your position.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Could you name one of these beyond doubt studies or link to the German government reporting this decision?
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Germany, writeup of a leaked draft 'expert' report: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft Lockdowns. A study of stringency index vs all US states outcomes: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-associated-with-covid-19-death-rate-across-us-states-but-is-associated-with-higher-unemployment/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-... Another, but for Europe: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?log... It's old but not much changed: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANCET-LOCKDOWN-NO-MORTALITY-BENEFIT-A-country-level-analysis-measuring-the-impact-of-government-actions.pdf https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANC... Examples of obvious failures (note that any example is enough to invalidate lockdown as a working theory of disease control, because it doesn't have any complications that could explain exceptions where it doesn't work): 1. Netherlands, end of 2021. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-lockdown-was-a-complete-failure/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-loc... 2. Sweden. Has some of the best results in Europe despite lockdown/COVID theory saying it should have had by far the worst. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pandemic-league-table-of-23-rich-countries/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pand... 3. Shanghai. No study needed for this one, just look at the reported case numbers and how the world's most nightmarish lockdown had no visible effect whatsoever. But really, please, just start reading and researching stuff yourself. This stuff is all like lockdowns 101. People on HN aggressively flag and downvote people who point out true things about COVID or the response to it (see how this post was voted down within seconds and the one you replied to is now flagged). It's tiring to always be asked to cite sources for things that are well known now for years amongst those who care enough to ask the questions and go looking for answers.
      - 4y ago
- darkerside 4y ago
  Lockdown was helpful in blunting the peak(s), purely based on hospitalization, with the additional curve ball that we had to predict hospitalization because it was a lagging indicator. Lockdown in NY may have made things worse. We sent kids home from college to the elderly, reduced our hospitalization staff at the worst time, and turned nursing homes into hotbeds.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
>This is some pretty heavy speculation it's actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing"
- darkerside 4y ago
  I'm not saying it wasn't bad. I'm calling out the assumption that it would have been worse without certain actions.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    those aren't assumptions, they are actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing" what do you think happens when 1 more covid patient comes in, just a single one? it becomes yet more work for those on the ground monitoring and tending to them, thus making things worse.

TimPC 4y ago

Everything we know about infection science suggests that it would have been a lot worse. Travel restrictions dramatically reduce inter regional spread and lockdowns help reduce the number of people catching COVID locally. Given what we know about how the virus spreads it is basically impossible to argue these measures weren’t effective. There can be some degree of uncertainty over effect size but even comparative studies looking at similar regions that practiced good or bad lockdown policies had shown large effects. Of course anti-vaxxers want to compare bad lockdown policies in rural Utah to good ones in NYC and ignore population density and major factors that cause increased spread that are independent of lockdown policy. But real scientists can do better science than that. Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more.

origin_path 4y ago
No, lockdowns and masking had no effect independent of things like population density, that's been proven beyond doubt now. Even the German government formally reached that conclusion and they are some of the most fanatical maskers and lockdowners out there! What we (read: governments and academics) "know" about infection is clearly wrong. The predictions don't match real world outcomes. Germ theory is incomplete. "Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more." Great. Go and read critically the studies and data sets on these topics and you'll see why you need to revise your position.
- civilized 4y ago
  Could you name one of these beyond doubt studies or link to the German government reporting this decision?
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Germany, writeup of a leaked draft 'expert' report: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft Lockdowns. A study of stringency index vs all US states outcomes: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-associated-with-covid-19-death-rate-across-us-states-but-is-associated-with-higher-unemployment/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-... Another, but for Europe: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?log... It's old but not much changed: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANCET-LOCKDOWN-NO-MORTALITY-BENEFIT-A-country-level-analysis-measuring-the-impact-of-government-actions.pdf https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANC... Examples of obvious failures (note that any example is enough to invalidate lockdown as a working theory of disease control, because it doesn't have any complications that could explain exceptions where it doesn't work): 1. Netherlands, end of 2021. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-lockdown-was-a-complete-failure/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-loc... 2. Sweden. Has some of the best results in Europe despite lockdown/COVID theory saying it should have had by far the worst. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pandemic-league-table-of-23-rich-countries/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pand... 3. Shanghai. No study needed for this one, just look at the reported case numbers and how the world's most nightmarish lockdown had no visible effect whatsoever. But really, please, just start reading and researching stuff yourself. This stuff is all like lockdowns 101. People on HN aggressively flag and downvote people who point out true things about COVID or the response to it (see how this post was voted down within seconds and the one you replied to is now flagged). It's tiring to always be asked to cite sources for things that are well known now for years amongst those who care enough to ask the questions and go looking for answers.
    - 4y ago
darkerside 4y ago
Lockdown was helpful in blunting the peak(s), purely based on hospitalization, with the additional curve ball that we had to predict hospitalization because it was a lagging indicator. Lockdown in NY may have made things worse. We sent kids home from college to the elderly, reduced our hospitalization staff at the worst time, and turned nursing homes into hotbeds.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

>This is some pretty heavy speculation it's actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing"

darkerside 4y ago
I'm not saying it wasn't bad. I'm calling out the assumption that it would have been worse without certain actions.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  those aren't assumptions, they are actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing" what do you think happens when 1 more covid patient comes in, just a single one? it becomes yet more work for those on the ground monitoring and tending to them, thus making things worse.