3 ms·

They did. The reason for going hard and fast on quarantine and lockdown is to make them as quick as possible. A reminder that this worked really well in Austral

They did. The reason for going hard and fast on quarantine and lockdown is to make them as quick as possible. A reminder that this worked really well in Australia, Nz, South Korea, China, Vietnam, etc etc.

ta8645 3y ago
> A reminder that this worked really well in Australia, Nz, South Korea, China, Vietnam, etc etc. Even excluding all the confounding variables, your assertion can not be stated so unequivocally, considering there has not been time to do long term studies on the outcomes overall. There may have been an initial success, but will it be maintained overall with all factors considered? How will it look 5 and 10 years later? Maybe you're right, and maybe that conclusion will stand. But it is this absolute insistence that we know the answer already, that is part of the reason trust in institutions has been undermined.
- __loam 3y ago
  I don't think not having a perfect analysis of the long term impact of these policies is an excuse for the kind of "well if the experts are so smart, why didn't they..." kind of rhetoric you're espousing here.
- ImaCake 3y ago
  >but will it be maintained overall with all factors considered? Is a straight up death count not enough for you? Like seriously, there are few less ambigious outcomes in biostatistics than mortality. And by that measure, yes, short hard lockdowns with long term international border closures absolutely worked. If you are implying mental health, then maybe consider being able to live your life without fear before the vaccines was a great way to maintain mental health. Also, not having anyone you know die of the virus (this is still true for most Australians including myself).
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > Is a straight up death count not enough for you? As opposed to what? And on what timescale? How can you be so absolutely sure that the numbers are what you think they are? That the counter-factual would have absolutely produced the death tolls you think they would? And how can you be so sure that the deaths that did happen weren't just more spread out and delayed, rather than averted? And at the end of the day, how can you be sure that suicides, and other missed medical procedures and tests won't result in greater long term deaths and suffering than would otherwise have been. In short, you're way more sure than you should be. You don't seem to have an ounce of doubt that you've assessed the situation correctly, or have been misinformed intentionally or otherwise. You have the faith of a true believer, rather than the measured skepticism of a scientist.
    - ImaCake 3y ago
      Your reply could’ve been done without a personal attack.
      - ta8645 3y ago
        I am sorry. I don't have any personal animosity toward you. I am personally just very frustrated with the conversation around covid, and the absolute fervor of belief and uncritical support in general there is around the dominant narrative. And it's not your fault, but I have endured a lot of personal attack and hardship for a few years now, because I simply asked questions.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    The big confounding variable is being an island. Yes I'm aware Australia isn't technically an island. Technically SK isn't either, but it might as well be Look at the stats for the US. The state of Hawaii has absolutely astoundingly low COVID deaths. The island of Alameda (note: this is not the same as Alameda county) has extremely low COVID deaths.
- spookthesunset 3y ago
  It doesn’t even matter what the death counts were. No lives were saved by flattening the curve (assuming we even managed to do that, which is very questionable). The whole intent was to spread them out over time to avoid overwhelming healthcare. And once that was proven to not be a concern, as per all the unused field hospitals closing down, it was time to resume normal life. The idea that by hunkering away at home we were somehow saving lives was insane.
jtbayly 3y ago
Insisting the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory worked to save lives? I can’t see any effect other than destroying their own credibility.

ta8645 3y ago

> A reminder that this worked really well in Australia, Nz, South Korea, China, Vietnam, etc etc. Even excluding all the confounding variables, your assertion can not be stated so unequivocally, considering there has not been time to do long term studies on the outcomes overall. There may have been an initial success, but will it be maintained overall with all factors considered? How will it look 5 and 10 years later? Maybe you're right, and maybe that conclusion will stand. But it is this absolute insistence that we know the answer already, that is part of the reason trust in institutions has been undermined.

__loam 3y ago
I don't think not having a perfect analysis of the long term impact of these policies is an excuse for the kind of "well if the experts are so smart, why didn't they..." kind of rhetoric you're espousing here.
ImaCake 3y ago
>but will it be maintained overall with all factors considered? Is a straight up death count not enough for you? Like seriously, there are few less ambigious outcomes in biostatistics than mortality. And by that measure, yes, short hard lockdowns with long term international border closures absolutely worked. If you are implying mental health, then maybe consider being able to live your life without fear before the vaccines was a great way to maintain mental health. Also, not having anyone you know die of the virus (this is still true for most Australians including myself).
- ta8645 3y ago
  > Is a straight up death count not enough for you? As opposed to what? And on what timescale? How can you be so absolutely sure that the numbers are what you think they are? That the counter-factual would have absolutely produced the death tolls you think they would? And how can you be so sure that the deaths that did happen weren't just more spread out and delayed, rather than averted? And at the end of the day, how can you be sure that suicides, and other missed medical procedures and tests won't result in greater long term deaths and suffering than would otherwise have been. In short, you're way more sure than you should be. You don't seem to have an ounce of doubt that you've assessed the situation correctly, or have been misinformed intentionally or otherwise. You have the faith of a true believer, rather than the measured skepticism of a scientist.
  - ImaCake 3y ago
    Your reply could’ve been done without a personal attack.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      I am sorry. I don't have any personal animosity toward you. I am personally just very frustrated with the conversation around covid, and the absolute fervor of belief and uncritical support in general there is around the dominant narrative. And it's not your fault, but I have endured a lot of personal attack and hardship for a few years now, because I simply asked questions.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  The big confounding variable is being an island. Yes I'm aware Australia isn't technically an island. Technically SK isn't either, but it might as well be Look at the stats for the US. The state of Hawaii has absolutely astoundingly low COVID deaths. The island of Alameda (note: this is not the same as Alameda county) has extremely low COVID deaths.
spookthesunset 3y ago
It doesn’t even matter what the death counts were. No lives were saved by flattening the curve (assuming we even managed to do that, which is very questionable). The whole intent was to spread them out over time to avoid overwhelming healthcare. And once that was proven to not be a concern, as per all the unused field hospitals closing down, it was time to resume normal life. The idea that by hunkering away at home we were somehow saving lives was insane.

jtbayly 3y ago

Insisting the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory worked to save lives? I can’t see any effect other than destroying their own credibility.