3 ms·

We spent a total of 262 days (by an NYT estimate, though the rules varied throughout that period) in lockdown throughout the pandemic. Did it suck mightily? Ye

by rgmerk 2y ago

We spent a total of 262 days (by an NYT estimate, though the rules varied throughout that period) in lockdown throughout the pandemic. Did it suck mightily? Yes. Did we get through it? Yes. (Are our boomer parents in rural areas in the least grateful that we collectively saved them from dying at the same rates experienced in most of the world? No. Did it have a serious effect on our psyche? See last paragraph…).

_heimdall 2y ago
> (Are our boomer parents in rural areas in the least grateful that we collectively saved them from dying at the same rates experienced in most of the world? No. > Did it have a serious effect on our psyche? See last paragraph…). That's a huge caveat you just snuck in there. I'm totally with you on the first part about largely having gotten through lockdowns, though it wasn't without some damage and suicide and crime rates did go up for example. We simply don't have data about how many boomer parents in rural areas were saved from dying. For one thing the virus mortality rate was much less than it could have been. For another we never actually ran randomized control studies testing efficacy against death. Given that you singled out boomers in rural areas, I also assuming that they either didn't get vaccinated or were somehow saved by those younger people in cities that did choose to get the shots. How do you assume that? The vaccines didn't prove out to be very good at preventing transmission, and preventing transmission between populated cities and rural areas is pretty well handled by geography.
vasco 2y ago
How are you under the impression that you saved anyone or that the US had lower rates than other countries? The US is top 10 or close, in deaths per case or deaths per capita of most statistics I can find for COVID-19. It doesn't seem to me like you're basing your thoughts on reality if your pre-existing supposition is "there were less deaths in the US". https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
- DavidPeiffer 2y ago
  I'm not able to research this in depth right now, but obesity was a pretty strong predictor of outcome. In general, the US population has is very unhealthy and obese. I'd be curious to see rates by country by BMI and infection date. There were definitely lessons learned from Italy's early surge that helped other countries in the early days.
  - vasco 2y ago
    There's no need to research the why. The only point I'm making is the end result - which they used as the main base of their argument on, is not true. Why it's not true is likely very complex, but it's not true. Nobody is going to be grateful for something that didn't happen, why would people be grateful for dying less as a population, if they in fact did not die less? Also there were lockdowns all over the world, not just in the US.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- bruce511 2y ago
  Researchers and statisticians will be poring over covid data for decades to come. There are so many variables to control for that at this point that definitive statements are hard. For example, the "US death rate" is somewhat meaningless because it encompasses multiple communities which adopted multiple strategies, with multiple levels of diligence, and covers both large concentrated populations and small distributed populations. US deaths were not evenly spread, so there was certainly some variety of outcome with variety of mitigation. Overall, the US death rate though is high, which suggests that it's very high in some areas. The correlation between strategy, compliance and outcome will feed researchers for a long time.
  - vasco 2y ago
    I know many deaths were wrongly attributed to COVID everywhere, the whole debacle about deaths 'with COVID' or 'from COVID', among others. Question is your point only reinforces my argument, because the data we have shows the US rates were roughly the same up to one of the worst, and the data we don't have we don't know what it says. So to conclude the complete opposite of what the current data shows, dirty or not, is wrong. To then be upset at it is misguided.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 2y ago
Are they still be alive to be grateful? Statistically a big chunk of the people who would have died to COVID have probably died in the intervening period between the lockdowns and now. It has been a couple of years and the 60+ demographic shrinks pretty quickly at the best of times.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
I live in a rural area and we were far less affected by COVID lockdown than cities and suburbs. The main impact was (a) my kid went to school online (b) I worked from home and (c) I wore a mask when I went grocery shopping. Besides that? I live in an extremely low-density area, it was pretty much business as usual. Restaurants were takeout only, when parks weren't mostly deserted, people spaced themselves out. I remember meeting a couple of my wife's friends in a park and we all just sat in a giant circle. Lockdown was more a minor irritation than anything.

by rgmerk 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

> (Are our boomer parents in rural areas in the least grateful that we collectively saved them from dying at the same rates experienced in most of the world? No. > Did it have a serious effect on our psyche? See last paragraph…). That's a huge caveat you just snuck in there. I'm totally with you on the first part about largely having gotten through lockdowns, though it wasn't without some damage and suicide and crime rates did go up for example. We simply don't have data about how many boomer parents in rural areas were saved from dying. For one thing the virus mortality rate was much less than it could have been. For another we never actually ran randomized control studies testing efficacy against death. Given that you singled out boomers in rural areas, I also assuming that they either didn't get vaccinated or were somehow saved by those younger people in cities that did choose to get the shots. How do you assume that? The vaccines didn't prove out to be very good at preventing transmission, and preventing transmission between populated cities and rural areas is pretty well handled by geography.

vasco 2y ago

How are you under the impression that you saved anyone or that the US had lower rates than other countries? The US is top 10 or close, in deaths per case or deaths per capita of most statistics I can find for COVID-19. It doesn't seem to me like you're basing your thoughts on reality if your pre-existing supposition is "there were less deaths in the US". https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

DavidPeiffer 2y ago
I'm not able to research this in depth right now, but obesity was a pretty strong predictor of outcome. In general, the US population has is very unhealthy and obese. I'd be curious to see rates by country by BMI and infection date. There were definitely lessons learned from Italy's early surge that helped other countries in the early days.
- vasco 2y ago
  There's no need to research the why. The only point I'm making is the end result - which they used as the main base of their argument on, is not true. Why it's not true is likely very complex, but it's not true. Nobody is going to be grateful for something that didn't happen, why would people be grateful for dying less as a population, if they in fact did not die less? Also there were lockdowns all over the world, not just in the US.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bruce511 2y ago
Researchers and statisticians will be poring over covid data for decades to come. There are so many variables to control for that at this point that definitive statements are hard. For example, the "US death rate" is somewhat meaningless because it encompasses multiple communities which adopted multiple strategies, with multiple levels of diligence, and covers both large concentrated populations and small distributed populations. US deaths were not evenly spread, so there was certainly some variety of outcome with variety of mitigation. Overall, the US death rate though is high, which suggests that it's very high in some areas. The correlation between strategy, compliance and outcome will feed researchers for a long time.
- vasco 2y ago
  I know many deaths were wrongly attributed to COVID everywhere, the whole debacle about deaths 'with COVID' or 'from COVID', among others. Question is your point only reinforces my argument, because the data we have shows the US rates were roughly the same up to one of the worst, and the data we don't have we don't know what it says. So to conclude the complete opposite of what the current data shows, dirty or not, is wrong. To then be upset at it is misguided.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

Are they still be alive to be grateful? Statistically a big chunk of the people who would have died to COVID have probably died in the intervening period between the lockdowns and now. It has been a couple of years and the 60+ demographic shrinks pretty quickly at the best of times.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago

I live in a rural area and we were far less affected by COVID lockdown than cities and suburbs. The main impact was (a) my kid went to school online (b) I worked from home and (c) I wore a mask when I went grocery shopping. Besides that? I live in an extremely low-density area, it was pretty much business as usual. Restaurants were takeout only, when parks weren't mostly deserted, people spaced themselves out. I remember meeting a couple of my wife's friends in a park and we all just sat in a giant circle. Lockdown was more a minor irritation than anything.