3 ms·

Indeed, and that was always the logical conclusion. We've never made perfectly effective vaccines that fast and we knew the virus was global. It was always goin

by toolz 3y ago

Indeed, and that was always the logical conclusion. We've never made perfectly effective vaccines that fast and we knew the virus was global. It was always going to find its way into China and run rampant to everyone without immunity whenever society opened back up and all of that is assuming their isolation actually works to begin with. There was no other option and I struggle to understand how that wasn't plain to see even in early 2020 when we had confirmed cases all around the world. Were we really banking on making a perfect vaccine before the world couldn't sustain lock-downs? If not, what was the "real" plan? I believe it was probably all just political game-theory, but it's hard not to wonder if there were people at the top hoping poor people could take the brunt of the contagion and die off before the rich people started going back into public.

svnt 3y ago
In most places policy seemed to be dictated by preserving the essential function of the health care system and to a lesser extent the sanity of the health care workers. When ICU beds filled or looked like they might, we optimized for not having excess people drowning in cytokine storms in the waiting rooms. It doesn’t seem very nefarious to me.
- toolz 3y ago
  That was the goal of both Korea and China, both of them early on appeared to reach this goal. That goal is not nefarious, but choosing the Chinese model when we watched it fail in Italy does appear to be gross incompetence since we did know without question that the Chinese model would have drastic consequences whether it succeeded or not.
  - svnt 3y ago
    I guess I’m not sure what your implied alternative is to the “Chinese Model” which I don’t think anyone can credibly say we accurately emulated — what would you have preferred we do and whose model would that have been? Sweden’s?
    - toolz 3y ago
      Today? It should go without saying we shouldn't have locked down. Somehow there are still people holding onto the idea it was a justified measure, but what we know today simply makes that option look absurd in hindsight. Sweden in particular? Sure, despite what the media was trying to sell, all of the scandanavian countries had similar strategies and (including sweden) ended up faring better than the average european country. So I wouldn't say Sweden specifically, because that's just a political hot topic. Norway, which also didn't actually lock down (just look at oxfords covid stringency index if you don't believe me) did very well. I suspect you're asking what would I have done at the time, though, and I think at the time the most practical approach was Korea's contact tracing and just like we've done for as long as I've been alive, staying at home would be something recommended for the sick. Lock downs were at no point in the pandemic a reasonable strategy, not even explicitly in the context of saving our healthcare system. Just look at how many hospitals have gone bankrupt and had to lay off huge amounts of staff. Our hospital system suffered the most because of lockdowns, not because of covid.
      - svnt 3y ago
        Your reasoning seems a bit odd. The hospitals are laying off because they overstaffed out of fear of not being able to handle the demands of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is gone they cannot economically support the headcount. If we had not locked down many many more people would have died, and the health care system would have actually broken down. You’re saying that we should have not locked down and just staffed the crematoriums instead?

by toolz 3y ago

svnt 3y ago

In most places policy seemed to be dictated by preserving the essential function of the health care system and to a lesser extent the sanity of the health care workers. When ICU beds filled or looked like they might, we optimized for not having excess people drowning in cytokine storms in the waiting rooms. It doesn’t seem very nefarious to me.

toolz 3y ago
That was the goal of both Korea and China, both of them early on appeared to reach this goal. That goal is not nefarious, but choosing the Chinese model when we watched it fail in Italy does appear to be gross incompetence since we did know without question that the Chinese model would have drastic consequences whether it succeeded or not.
- svnt 3y ago
  I guess I’m not sure what your implied alternative is to the “Chinese Model” which I don’t think anyone can credibly say we accurately emulated — what would you have preferred we do and whose model would that have been? Sweden’s?
  - toolz 3y ago
    Today? It should go without saying we shouldn't have locked down. Somehow there are still people holding onto the idea it was a justified measure, but what we know today simply makes that option look absurd in hindsight. Sweden in particular? Sure, despite what the media was trying to sell, all of the scandanavian countries had similar strategies and (including sweden) ended up faring better than the average european country. So I wouldn't say Sweden specifically, because that's just a political hot topic. Norway, which also didn't actually lock down (just look at oxfords covid stringency index if you don't believe me) did very well. I suspect you're asking what would I have done at the time, though, and I think at the time the most practical approach was Korea's contact tracing and just like we've done for as long as I've been alive, staying at home would be something recommended for the sick. Lock downs were at no point in the pandemic a reasonable strategy, not even explicitly in the context of saving our healthcare system. Just look at how many hospitals have gone bankrupt and had to lay off huge amounts of staff. Our hospital system suffered the most because of lockdowns, not because of covid.
    - svnt 3y ago
      Your reasoning seems a bit odd. The hospitals are laying off because they overstaffed out of fear of not being able to handle the demands of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is gone they cannot economically support the headcount. If we had not locked down many many more people would have died, and the health care system would have actually broken down. You’re saying that we should have not locked down and just staffed the crematoriums instead?