4 ms·

My problem with this is that there seem to be two related but not really correlated points of opinion: 1. How bad Covid was, like was it a big deal or not. 2.

by CPLX 3y ago

My problem with this is that there seem to be two related but not really correlated points of opinion: 1. How bad Covid was, like was it a big deal or not. 2. The effectiveness of the means we had at our disposal to do anything about it. At least in the US everyone’s responses are highly correlated. For example: if you think Covid is a big deal you think we should have taken all the measures we took and that relaxing restrictions was a mistake. If you’re on the other team you feel like we shouldn’t have done the interventions and lockdowns because you think Covid is not that big a deal and is overhyped. I feel most attracted to the group that agrees that Covid is a pretty big deal and very deadly and an incredible tragedy. I also think that except for the vaccines we’ve never had much control over it at all, and that for the most part the various lockdowns and mandates were pretty pointless after the first few months had passed and we knew what we were dealing with. Not much of a constituency for this point of view in the narrative, though I feel like it might be commonly held.

x86x87 3y ago
One thing that stuck with me since the early stages was the remark that if by looking at it after it's over the measures that were taken don't look like an overreaction it means we didn't do enough. My guess is that we'll see the effects of covid for decades both in the form of long covid and socio-economic impacts.
- CPLX 3y ago
  I remember that line too but it’s just a slogan, it doesn’t really have normative meaning. For example, closing public beaches was an overreaction. It was pointless and had no positive effect at all. Noticing that doesn’t prove that we did enough. It’s still possible that we didn’t manufacture vaccines or staff hospitals fast enough for example.
  - andybak 3y ago
    I think broadly speaking there were plenty of outdoor measures that quickly felt like overreactions. Indoor measures often felt the opposite (at least in terms of how they actually played out)
  - lazide 3y ago
    Eh, that’s very much hindsight bias. We didn’t know at the time that closing beaches was useless. Once we found out, those bans started to be reversed. That is why the ‘slogan’. If you take proactive precautions based on what might help, you’ll always look like you were overreacting afterwards because not all of them will be true. On the flip side, if you wait for solid evidence of what is actually effective or not, you’ll definitely end up with much larger spread and more damage, because it takes a lot of time for that data to be gathered, confounding variables to be identified, etc. In the face of an unknown pathogen, (like an unknown enemy in a war), it’s important to defend against apparent threats, not just wait to see which ones are real - as by then it’s too late.
    - junofan 3y ago
      I mean, coronaviruses are some of the most studied human pathogens on the planet, especially after SARS. The whole “we don’t know what we’re dealing with” shtick was hard to swallow. Health authorities should have been better prepared for a respiratory pandemic, period. We spend too much money on public health for the response we got.
      - fzeroracer 3y ago
        By all means then, if you're an expert then why didn't you tell us about the disease when it got started? Think of all the lives you, personally, could've saved if you shared your expert knowledge. Knowledge that no one else in the entire world knew about apparently as the disease transitioned to a pandemic. I assume that at least one health authority on this planet would've been prepared and know exactly how to respond, according to your expertise.
        CPLX 3y ago
        I mean that goes back to the point this comment thread is attached to. Knowing things doesn't magically grant you power over the spread of the virus. The reality is that nobody had that power and no amount of expertise was going to fix that.
ghaff 3y ago
I pretty much agree with that. I think the evidence strongly suggests that vaccines help to reduce the effect of COVID especially in more vulnerable populations though it may not do much in terms of spread--especially with later, more infectious, strains. In aggregate, other interventions probably did some good at the margins? Especially early on? But it's easy to look at the policies in some countries and declare success--so long as you look at the right time window.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I know where I live the concern was about overwhelming hospitals. The early experience in Italy drove their thinking about it. When it seemed like the hospitals were going to be ok, "lockdown" measures were dropped.

by CPLX 3y ago

x86x87 3y ago

One thing that stuck with me since the early stages was the remark that if by looking at it after it's over the measures that were taken don't look like an overreaction it means we didn't do enough. My guess is that we'll see the effects of covid for decades both in the form of long covid and socio-economic impacts.

CPLX 3y ago
I remember that line too but it’s just a slogan, it doesn’t really have normative meaning. For example, closing public beaches was an overreaction. It was pointless and had no positive effect at all. Noticing that doesn’t prove that we did enough. It’s still possible that we didn’t manufacture vaccines or staff hospitals fast enough for example.
- andybak 3y ago
  I think broadly speaking there were plenty of outdoor measures that quickly felt like overreactions. Indoor measures often felt the opposite (at least in terms of how they actually played out)
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, that’s very much hindsight bias. We didn’t know at the time that closing beaches was useless. Once we found out, those bans started to be reversed. That is why the ‘slogan’. If you take proactive precautions based on what might help, you’ll always look like you were overreacting afterwards because not all of them will be true. On the flip side, if you wait for solid evidence of what is actually effective or not, you’ll definitely end up with much larger spread and more damage, because it takes a lot of time for that data to be gathered, confounding variables to be identified, etc. In the face of an unknown pathogen, (like an unknown enemy in a war), it’s important to defend against apparent threats, not just wait to see which ones are real - as by then it’s too late.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I mean, coronaviruses are some of the most studied human pathogens on the planet, especially after SARS. The whole “we don’t know what we’re dealing with” shtick was hard to swallow. Health authorities should have been better prepared for a respiratory pandemic, period. We spend too much money on public health for the response we got.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      By all means then, if you're an expert then why didn't you tell us about the disease when it got started? Think of all the lives you, personally, could've saved if you shared your expert knowledge. Knowledge that no one else in the entire world knew about apparently as the disease transitioned to a pandemic. I assume that at least one health authority on this planet would've been prepared and know exactly how to respond, according to your expertise.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        I mean that goes back to the point this comment thread is attached to. Knowing things doesn't magically grant you power over the spread of the virus. The reality is that nobody had that power and no amount of expertise was going to fix that.

ghaff 3y ago

I pretty much agree with that. I think the evidence strongly suggests that vaccines help to reduce the effect of COVID especially in more vulnerable populations though it may not do much in terms of spread--especially with later, more infectious, strains. In aggregate, other interventions probably did some good at the margins? Especially early on? But it's easy to look at the policies in some countries and declare success--so long as you look at the right time window.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

I know where I live the concern was about overwhelming hospitals. The early experience in Italy drove their thinking about it. When it seemed like the hospitals were going to be ok, "lockdown" measures were dropped.