Wuhan Coronavirus: Lockdowns, Quarantines, Cancellations

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
deeplyhigh said:
How does one prove that when, as you said above, testing is lacking? Seems like you couldn’t actually prove that the spread has slowed if everyone isn‘t tested.

Also, even the models that included social distancing, like the IHME model, have been wildly off in their predictions. If even those models that accounted for distancing were so far off, then how can you prove the measures are working?
Click to expand...
Convenient that your argument hinges on the fact that it is absolutely impossible to test everyone in this country.

Not that it matters. It's established that the disease is extremely infectious and that the vector of transmission is droplets exhaled, spat, or coughed onto another person or surfaces. The goal of the orders is to limit exposure by limiting close contact with potentially infected people. That it isn't working to your (or anyone else's) subjective metrics is immaterial. It works better than the alternative which, unfortunately at this point, is nothing at all.
 
Pargon said:
Convenient that your argument hinges on the fact that it is absolutely impossible to test everyone in this country.

Not that it matters. It's established that the disease is extremely infectious and that the vector of transmission is droplets exhaled, spat, or coughed onto another person or surfaces. The goal of the orders is to limit exposure by limiting close contact with potentially infected people. That it isn't working to your (or anyone else's) subjective metrics is immaterial. It works better than the alternative which, unfortunately at this point, is nothing at all.
Click to expand...

His argument is that it’s proven fact that the lockdowns are working, which it is not, and testing is what would prove his argument one way or the other.

Anyway, you‘re being a little pedantic with what I said, so I guess I’ll spell it out for you. You are correct that the virus is very infectious. It is also not nearly as deadly as the doomers wish. Let’s say we test 60% of the population rather than the impossible “everyone” (which was a figure of speech to begin with) and the rates are anything like some are hypothesizing at 10-15% of the population being infected already. At that point, we would have been locked down for weeks in most parts of the country, and yet, a large percentage of the population is likely still infected. Most of those infected will have no idea they’re even sick because their symptoms are so mild or non-existent. If that much of the population is infected, even after lockdown measures, and their symptoms are so mild they don’t even know they are sick, what exactly are the lockdowns achieving? Furthermore, what the increased testing would prove is that the virus is in fact more widespread than we believe, not that the spread has slowed, and most likely not that it has slowed due to lockdowns.
 
MediocreMilt said:
Uhh. No it's not. It's a plausibile assumption. Where's the control group?
Click to expand...


deeplyhigh said:
His argument is that it’s proven fact that the lockdowns are working, which it is not, and testing is what would prove his argument one way or the other.

Anyway, you‘re being a little pedantic with what I said, so I guess I’ll spell it out for you. You are correct that the virus is very infectious. It is also not nearly as deadly as the doomers wish. Let’s say we test 60% of the population rather than the impossible “everyone” (which was a figure of speech to begin with) and the rates are anything like some are hypothesizing at 10-15% of the population being infected already. At that point, we would have been locked down for weeks in most parts of the country, and yet, a large percentage of the population is likely still infected. Most of those infected will have no idea they’re even sick because their symptoms are so mild or non-existent. If that much of the population is infected, even after lockdown measures, and their symptoms are so mild they don’t even know they are sick, what exactly are the lockdowns achieving? Furthermore, what the increased testing would prove is that the virus is in fact more widespread than we believe, not that the spread has slowed, and most likely not that it has slowed due to lockdowns.
Click to expand...

Look at what happened in Italy versus what happened in Korea. Italy didn't isolate and had a huge outbreak, and once social distancing happened, it slowed down. Korea immediately had the outbreak (and tons of testing) and it didn't get too big there. It should be common sense that if you stay inside, the spread of the infectious disease will slow down.


Or, if you want a peer-reviewed study of it from Australia: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.20.20040055v1

Findings The application of all four social distancing interventions: school closure, workplace non-attendance, increased case isolation, and community contact reduction is highly effective in flattening the epidemic curve, reducing the maximum daily case numbers, and lengthening outbreak duration. These were also found to be effective even after 10 weeks delay from index case arrivals. The most effective single intervention was found to be increasing case isolation, to 100 percent of children and 90 percent of adults. Interpretation As strong social distancing intervention strategies had the most effect in reducing the epidemic peak, this strategy may be considered when weaker strategies are first tried and found to be less effective. Questions arise as to the duration of strong social distancing measures, given they are highly disruptive to society. Tradeoffs may need to be made between the effectiveness of social distancing strategies and population willingness to adhere to them.
Click to expand...

No one is denying that it sucks and that it does lengthen the duration, but it does lead to fewer cases (and a lot fewer deaths).

And here is a writeup from Johns Hopkins University: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...navirus-social-distancing-and-self-quarantine

A large number of people becoming very sick over the course of a few days could overwhelm a hospital or care facility. Too many people becoming severely ill with COVID-19 at roughly the same time could result in a shortage of hospital beds, equipment or doctors.

On a graph, a sudden surge in patients over a short time could be represented as a tall, narrow curve.

On the other hand, if that same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate, for example, over the course of several weeks, the line of the graph would look like a longer, flatter curve.

In this situation, fewer patients would arrive at the hospital each day. There would be a better chance of the hospital being able to keep up with adequate supplies, beds and health care providers to care for them.
Click to expand...
 
deeplyhigh said:
not nearly as deadly
Click to expand...
Preventing death has not been the primary aim since day one.
deeplyhigh said:
Most of those infected will have no idea they’re even sick because their symptoms are so mild or non-existent.
Click to expand...
You have no way of knowing this will be the case.
deeplyhigh said:
what exactly are the lockdowns achieving?
Click to expand...
Further viral spread.
deeplyhigh said:
what the increased testing would prove is that the virus is in fact more widespread than we believe, not that the spread has slowed, and most likely not that it has slowed due to lockdowns.
Click to expand...
Again, you have no way of knowing this. Your argument that the lockdowns are not working is circular ("they're not working because people are sick therefore they should be lifted because people are sick anyway") and meanwhile the argument for distancing is simple: there is less chance of infection if the vector is limited. End of.

That it's not as good a solution as is needed is not a case for scrapping it. Present alternatives, don't simply claim things would be just as bad without it which, again, you cannot possibly prove.
 
Pargon said:
Preventing death has not been the primary aim since day one.

You have no way of knowing this will be the case.

Further viral spread.

Again, you have no way of knowing this. Your argument that the lockdowns are not working is circular ("they're not working because people are sick therefore they should be lifted because people are sick anyway") and meanwhile the argument for distancing is simple: there is less chance of infection if the vector is limited. End of.

That it's not as good a solution as is needed is not a case for scrapping it. Present alternatives, don't simply claim things would be just as bad without it which, again, you cannot possibly prove.
Click to expand...
It must just be an American thing to worry about the precedence this sets and the fact that some dude has the latitude to issue legal mandates without due process.
 
SickNastyBastard said:
It must just be an American thing to worry about the precedence this sets and the fact that some dude has the latitude to issue legal mandates without due process.
Click to expand...
Emergencies requiring broad executive action whose legality of morality have been questioned have been happening in America since the formation of the country and I have zero idea why any would think the current gang of idiots running things on either side would nail it this time, considering many states and the federal government did not have a response planned until weeks after people began getting sick.

Again, is perfect? No. Is it a good, workable, long-term solution? No, clearly. But limiting infection buys time for something better. Whether those in power will do so, or even are interested in doing so, is a separate discussion. I don't think there's a need at all to argue whether or not political- or self-interest is driving some of these decisions. To me that's also clear. But the measures being taken are preventing infection based simply on how the infection spreads.

It's a necessary evil and a few weeks ago I'd have said (again) that people should suck it up and deal with it but things have been taken too far, as things tend to be. I wouldn't ask anyone to deal with not being able to acquire what they need for their lives because I wouldn't expect to have to adhere to that myself.
 
Pargon said:
Emergencies requiring broad executive action whose legality of morality have been questioned have been happening in America since the formation of the country and I have zero idea why any would think the current gang of idiots running things on either side would nail it this time, considering many states and the federal government did not have a response planned until weeks after people began getting sick.

Again, is perfect? No. Is it a good, workable, long-term solution? No, clearly. But limiting infection buys time for something better. Whether those in power will do so, or even are interested in doing so, is a separate discussion. I don't think there's a need at all to argue whether or not political- or self-interest is driving some of these decisions. To me that's also clear. But the measures being taken are preventing infection based simply on how the infection spreads.

It's a necessary evil and a few weeks ago I'd have said (again) that people should suck it up and deal with it but things have been taken too far, as things tend to be. I wouldn't ask anyone to deal with not being able to acquire what they need for their lives because I wouldn't expect to have to adhere to that myself.
Click to expand...
I wish I could get on board. But the fact that you can be held indefinitely until arraignment in my area is something Ill never get on board with. Idiot or not, anyone whose been locked up can tell you that jail is awful.
 
SickNastyBastard said:
I wish I could get on board. But the fact that you can be held indefinitely until arraignment in my area is something Ill never get on board with. Idiot or not, anyone whose been locked up can tell you that jail is awful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is pretty fucked up. That is more due to local government ordinances than the lockdown, though.
 
SickNastyBastard said:
I wish I could get on board. But the fact that you can be held indefinitely until arraignment in my area is something Ill never get on board with. Idiot or not, anyone whose been locked up can tell you that jail is awful.
Click to expand...
No sane person would ever look at five or six people stuffed into a six-by-ten cell with one toilet and one sink and call it livable, or that it has any semblance of dignity. I'd say, "if there has to be a penalty why not just fine them" but good fucking luck getting someone to pay a fine over that when you're not meant to be leaving your house nearly at all anyway.

I wouldn't pay it, either. Fuck them.
 
Pargon said:
Preventing death has not been the primary aim since day one.

You have no way of knowing this will be the case.

Further viral spread.

Again, you have no way of knowing this. Your argument that the lockdowns are not working is circular ("they're not working because people are sick therefore they should be lifted because people are sick anyway") and meanwhile the argument for distancing is simple: there is less chance of infection if the vector is limited. End of.

That it's not as good a solution as is needed is not a case for scrapping it. Present alternatives, don't simply claim things would be just as bad without it which, again, you cannot possibly prove.
Click to expand...

I am aware that the supposed reason was to not overrun our healthcare with serious cases. A lot of those would’ve died, but death rates being low also means that hospitals are not seeing high rates of hospitalizations. In fact, our health systems in most of the country are so overrun that hospitals are furloughing employees, including nurses and doctors, and health professionals are uploading dance videos to social media.

My alternative has been the same from the start of this and is simple: voluntary distancing for elderly and those with underlying conditions and the rest of us can get back to our lives. Wear masks if you want, whatever, but we don’t all need to be staying inside our homes for this.
 
teriyakiburns said:
Sweden, apparently. So far they aren't reporting significant differences to anyone else, despite nearly no authoritarian lockdowns. Funny that.
Click to expand...
Can Sweden even enforce a lockdown? Pretty sure if you live in Rinkeby or the shitholes in Malmo where they throw grenades at each other all night you can do whatever you want because the police don't visit there. Or would it be like Brazil where the favela polices itself?
 
teriyakiburns said:
Sweden, apparently. So far they aren't reporting significant differences to anyone else, despite nearly no authoritarian lockdowns. Funny that.
Click to expand...

Not so much: https://www.nydailynews.com/coronav...0200410-btx67gubcraopniob5od3ajyt4-story.html

So far, it’s not working. At least 870 Swedes have died from COVID-19, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins. That’s more than four times as many deaths as its Scandinavian neighbors, Norway (113) and Finland (48) have seen combined.
Click to expand...
 
Save the Loli said:
Can Sweden even enforce a lockdown? Pretty sure if you live in Rinkeby or the shitholes in Malmo where they throw grenades at each other all night you can do whatever you want because the police don't visit there. Or would it be like Brazil where the favela polices itself?
Click to expand...
I'm sure their military can step up in this time of crisis.

sweedmil.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom