10 ms·

There was never a consensus for or against lockdowns. Cant speak for the US and it's utterly broken media landscape but in Europe experts were asking for this f

There was never a consensus for or against lockdowns. Cant speak for the US and it's utterly broken media landscape but in Europe experts were asking for this from day one. It is also a known tool of any epidemic/pandemic management, it just has rarely been necessary at such scale given the intensity and wide distribution of COVID.

revelio 3y ago
This is revisionism. The only place in Europe that didn't lock down was Sweden and they were viciously attacked in the media for it, additionally Anders Tegnall was also attacked by other epidemiologists. I followed it all very closely at the time. Tegnall and his mentor stood alone. With the exception of the Great Barrington crew and maybe Ioannidis, all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy. Great Barrington meanwhile was viciously attacked, described as fringe, non-consensus, would kill millions etc. The attempts to rewrite what happened in this whole thread are incredible to witness (not just your post, many others). It was only a few years ago! Our memories aren't that bad! And the internet is full of receipts on this. The idea there was robust academic debate about lockdowns or masks or the lab leak or anything else is a fantasy.
- cygx 3y ago
  But severity and timeline of lockdown measures varied from country to country, ie there was some diversity of opinion. Also note that even Sweden eventually implemented policies such as restricting opening hours of bars and restaurants, limiting the size of some gatherings, etc. for a time.
- boston_clone 3y ago
  A scientific consensus is significantly different than media opinion. Second, there is no "debate" regarding efficacy of masks and limiting exposure via quarantining. Masking reduces the likelihood of contracting SARS from others, and staying home reduces the spread to others and strain on hospitals. Unsurprisingly, the people attempting to debate this typically had no medical background whatsoever. Millions died in the US alone, and a non-trivial percentage of them would likely still be alive if our public officials did a better job of respecting the medical professionals and their recommendations.
  - anthonypasq 3y ago
    Oppositions to lockdowns were never about whether they would reduce deaths or not in the short term. Anyone with a brain could understand that if people weren't in a position to breath on each other, the virus wouldnt spread as quickly. Oppositions to lockdowns were always about tradeoffs and whether they were worth it. Its just such a boring critique. My main question still remains, what would your plan have been if we still didnt have a vaccine? From my perspective lockdown supporters got completely bailed out by one of the greatest medical/scientific achievements in human history (developing and deploying an extremely effective vaccine within 1 year). The only thing lockdowns do is push cases into the future.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      > The only thing lockdowns do is push cases into the future. Even without vaccination, mortality from covid is significantly lower than it was early in the pandemic.
    - Mechanical9 3y ago
      Pushing cases into the future was always the stated goal of lockdowns. That was what "flatten the curve" meant. The idea was to accept some temporary consequences in order to prevent deaths until vaccines could be made. I also don't think it was any stroke of luck that resulted in vaccines being made quickly. Our scientific establishments correctly devoted their resources to developing vaccines. A lot of us were closely following their development and knew that they were just around the corner. Even without advancements in MRNA technology, other types of vaccines were being made that could prevent the majority of deaths.
      - anthonypasq 3y ago
        When "flatten the curve" came out as a slogan they told us 2 weeks. Absolutely no one in public health believed that would be true. It doesnt make sense on any level whatsoever. i mean it just beggars belief that they told the public that with a straight face. the only person i recall in early days of 2020 saying this was going to be many months if not years was Mike Osterholm which i respect for not gaslighting the public. heres an article in the NYT about managing vaccine expectations. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coron... also you argument falls apart when lockdowns (restrictions, npis, whatever you want to call them) continued way beyond vaccine rollout. I was first in line to get vaccinated and im very glad i did, because they promised us that would be a return to normal, but it wasnt for at least a year afterwards and i still havent been given an explanation why.
- sampo 3y ago
  > all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy This is not true. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and UK [1] had their own versions of "Tegnell". That is, epidemiologists who recommended the let-it-rip, "herd immunity" strategy. In these countries, politicians finally decided to follow the majority consensus among countries, and ignore those epidemiologists who were among the "herd immunity" school of thought. Even in New Zealand it was a somewhat close call, would the government listen to Michael Baker [2] as they eventually did, or Simon Thornley [3]. > Great Barrington meanwhile was viciously attacked, described as fringe, non-consensus, would kill millions etc. Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? [1] "For a time, he advocated a herd immunity approach." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pand... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_gr...
  - revelio 3y ago
    Vallance is in no way comparable to Tegnell. Valance and the other UK/SAGE "experts" were quite happy to invert their advice overnight on the basis of nothing. Like all the others they were making decisions based on politics and ideology, not a mature of understanding of science. Tegnell picked one position and stuck with it because there was no reason to change it, in that he was virtually alone. > Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. This isn't even up for debate anymore, the data is openly available and has been analyzed to death. These interventions simply did not work, and it was known from the start that they wouldn't work. Heck the idea they wouldn't work was the consensus right before 2020, which is why a "consensus" of these idiots is worth less than the electrons used to transmit it.
    - cygx 3y ago
      It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. Do you have a source for that? It's been a while since I've looked at Covid numbers, so the only research I know off the top of my head that claims there was no effect is a meta-analysis by some economists, which originally claimed lockdowns only prevented 0.2% of deaths. After criticism, they had to re-evaluate their approach and arrived at 3.2%. However, not all objections were addressed, so who knows if there isn't another order of magnitude hiding somewhere. Personally, I've been leaning towards lockdowns having the potential to be effective based on excess mortality in the nordics: Sweden was the only nordic country that did not lock down in March 2020, and it's also the only one of these countries that saw significant excess mortality in April 2020. There could of course be another reason for that, but until someone offers such, the lockdowns seem to be the obvious factor...
nonethewiser 3y ago
> There was never a consensus for or against lockdowns. So when was the last lockdown before covid?
- boston_clone 3y ago
  Please don't try and have other people do your research for easily answered questions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/
  - Izkata 3y ago
    The article is conflating quarantines with lockdowns. They're not the same thing. Quarantines are more like the much-derided Great Barrington Declaration.
    - boston_clone 3y ago
      TFA is generalizing that type of response to various outbreaks, and notes the differences. A related comment of mine has a link with examples for the last several hundred years.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
    do you think if they could google simple questions they would still parrot silly talking points 3 years after?
  - naasking 3y ago
    Quarantining people who may have been exposed is a whole universe away from the lockdowns being discussed here, where whole cities, states and countries proactively prevented the free movement of their people who they had no reason to suspect had been exposed. Don't conflate these two.
    - boston_clone 3y ago
      It seems you may be looking to only discredit an argument instead of arguing the merits. FTA: > However, the use of quarantine and other measures for controlling epidemic diseases has always been controversial because such strategies raise political, ethical, and socioeconomic issues and require a careful balance between public interest and individual rights. Here’s a list of about 30 examples since the 15th century where various governments have prevented the free movement of their people (because even then, they recognized that public health is more important than individual travel). https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/short-history-of-quarantine/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/short-history-of-quara... In the face of a never-before-seen rapidly spreading and mutating virus, what the hell do you think medical professionals and governments ought to do? Stand by idly and let people die?
spookthesunset 3y ago
> It is also a known tool of any epidemic/pandemic management, it just has rarely been necessary at such scale given the intensity and wide distribution of COVID. That must be why all the pandemic planning guides from various national health agencies specifically said do not do lockdowns, do no close schools and don't force masks... It was never a "known tool" to anybody. It was an insane, unproven pharmaceutical intervention that somehow, suddenly, became something "we always knew about". What we did for covid was absolutely insane.
- boston_clone 3y ago
  > That must be why all the pandemic planning guides from various national health agencies specifically said do not do lockdowns, do no close schools and don't force masks... Could you provide a citation? I’ve read the opposite from NIH, CDC, NHS, etc. For example, this is from 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/

revelio 3y ago

This is revisionism. The only place in Europe that didn't lock down was Sweden and they were viciously attacked in the media for it, additionally Anders Tegnall was also attacked by other epidemiologists. I followed it all very closely at the time. Tegnall and his mentor stood alone. With the exception of the Great Barrington crew and maybe Ioannidis, all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy. Great Barrington meanwhile was viciously attacked, described as fringe, non-consensus, would kill millions etc. The attempts to rewrite what happened in this whole thread are incredible to witness (not just your post, many others). It was only a few years ago! Our memories aren't that bad! And the internet is full of receipts on this. The idea there was robust academic debate about lockdowns or masks or the lab leak or anything else is a fantasy.

cygx 3y ago
But severity and timeline of lockdown measures varied from country to country, ie there was some diversity of opinion. Also note that even Sweden eventually implemented policies such as restricting opening hours of bars and restaurants, limiting the size of some gatherings, etc. for a time.
boston_clone 3y ago
A scientific consensus is significantly different than media opinion. Second, there is no "debate" regarding efficacy of masks and limiting exposure via quarantining. Masking reduces the likelihood of contracting SARS from others, and staying home reduces the spread to others and strain on hospitals. Unsurprisingly, the people attempting to debate this typically had no medical background whatsoever. Millions died in the US alone, and a non-trivial percentage of them would likely still be alive if our public officials did a better job of respecting the medical professionals and their recommendations.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  Oppositions to lockdowns were never about whether they would reduce deaths or not in the short term. Anyone with a brain could understand that if people weren't in a position to breath on each other, the virus wouldnt spread as quickly. Oppositions to lockdowns were always about tradeoffs and whether they were worth it. Its just such a boring critique. My main question still remains, what would your plan have been if we still didnt have a vaccine? From my perspective lockdown supporters got completely bailed out by one of the greatest medical/scientific achievements in human history (developing and deploying an extremely effective vaccine within 1 year). The only thing lockdowns do is push cases into the future.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > The only thing lockdowns do is push cases into the future. Even without vaccination, mortality from covid is significantly lower than it was early in the pandemic.
  - Mechanical9 3y ago
    Pushing cases into the future was always the stated goal of lockdowns. That was what "flatten the curve" meant. The idea was to accept some temporary consequences in order to prevent deaths until vaccines could be made. I also don't think it was any stroke of luck that resulted in vaccines being made quickly. Our scientific establishments correctly devoted their resources to developing vaccines. A lot of us were closely following their development and knew that they were just around the corner. Even without advancements in MRNA technology, other types of vaccines were being made that could prevent the majority of deaths.
    - anthonypasq 3y ago
      When "flatten the curve" came out as a slogan they told us 2 weeks. Absolutely no one in public health believed that would be true. It doesnt make sense on any level whatsoever. i mean it just beggars belief that they told the public that with a straight face. the only person i recall in early days of 2020 saying this was going to be many months if not years was Mike Osterholm which i respect for not gaslighting the public. heres an article in the NYT about managing vaccine expectations. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coron... also you argument falls apart when lockdowns (restrictions, npis, whatever you want to call them) continued way beyond vaccine rollout. I was first in line to get vaccinated and im very glad i did, because they promised us that would be a return to normal, but it wasnt for at least a year afterwards and i still havent been given an explanation why.
sampo 3y ago
> all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy This is not true. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and UK [1] had their own versions of "Tegnell". That is, epidemiologists who recommended the let-it-rip, "herd immunity" strategy. In these countries, politicians finally decided to follow the majority consensus among countries, and ignore those epidemiologists who were among the "herd immunity" school of thought. Even in New Zealand it was a somewhat close call, would the government listen to Michael Baker [2] as they eventually did, or Simon Thornley [3]. > Great Barrington meanwhile was viciously attacked, described as fringe, non-consensus, would kill millions etc. Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? [1] "For a time, he advocated a herd immunity approach." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pand... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_gr...
- revelio 3y ago
  Vallance is in no way comparable to Tegnell. Valance and the other UK/SAGE "experts" were quite happy to invert their advice overnight on the basis of nothing. Like all the others they were making decisions based on politics and ideology, not a mature of understanding of science. Tegnell picked one position and stuck with it because there was no reason to change it, in that he was virtually alone. > Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. This isn't even up for debate anymore, the data is openly available and has been analyzed to death. These interventions simply did not work, and it was known from the start that they wouldn't work. Heck the idea they wouldn't work was the consensus right before 2020, which is why a "consensus" of these idiots is worth less than the electrons used to transmit it.
  - cygx 3y ago
    It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. Do you have a source for that? It's been a while since I've looked at Covid numbers, so the only research I know off the top of my head that claims there was no effect is a meta-analysis by some economists, which originally claimed lockdowns only prevented 0.2% of deaths. After criticism, they had to re-evaluate their approach and arrived at 3.2%. However, not all objections were addressed, so who knows if there isn't another order of magnitude hiding somewhere. Personally, I've been leaning towards lockdowns having the potential to be effective based on excess mortality in the nordics: Sweden was the only nordic country that did not lock down in March 2020, and it's also the only one of these countries that saw significant excess mortality in April 2020. There could of course be another reason for that, but until someone offers such, the lockdowns seem to be the obvious factor...

nonethewiser 3y ago

> There was never a consensus for or against lockdowns. So when was the last lockdown before covid?

boston_clone 3y ago
Please don't try and have other people do your research for easily answered questions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/
- Izkata 3y ago
  The article is conflating quarantines with lockdowns. They're not the same thing. Quarantines are more like the much-derided Great Barrington Declaration.
  - boston_clone 3y ago
    TFA is generalizing that type of response to various outbreaks, and notes the differences. A related comment of mine has a link with examples for the last several hundred years.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  do you think if they could google simple questions they would still parrot silly talking points 3 years after?
- naasking 3y ago
  Quarantining people who may have been exposed is a whole universe away from the lockdowns being discussed here, where whole cities, states and countries proactively prevented the free movement of their people who they had no reason to suspect had been exposed. Don't conflate these two.
  - boston_clone 3y ago
    It seems you may be looking to only discredit an argument instead of arguing the merits. FTA: > However, the use of quarantine and other measures for controlling epidemic diseases has always been controversial because such strategies raise political, ethical, and socioeconomic issues and require a careful balance between public interest and individual rights. Here’s a list of about 30 examples since the 15th century where various governments have prevented the free movement of their people (because even then, they recognized that public health is more important than individual travel). https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/short-history-of-quarantine/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/short-history-of-quara... In the face of a never-before-seen rapidly spreading and mutating virus, what the hell do you think medical professionals and governments ought to do? Stand by idly and let people die?

spookthesunset 3y ago

> It is also a known tool of any epidemic/pandemic management, it just has rarely been necessary at such scale given the intensity and wide distribution of COVID. That must be why all the pandemic planning guides from various national health agencies specifically said do not do lockdowns, do no close schools and don't force masks... It was never a "known tool" to anybody. It was an insane, unproven pharmaceutical intervention that somehow, suddenly, became something "we always knew about". What we did for covid was absolutely insane.

boston_clone 3y ago
> That must be why all the pandemic planning guides from various national health agencies specifically said do not do lockdowns, do no close schools and don't force masks... Could you provide a citation? I’ve read the opposite from NIH, CDC, NHS, etc. For example, this is from 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559034/